Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EGrunt]

Hi,

Within the past week of taking delivery of my 2013 Atomic Orange CVO Road Glide I have been stopped by two motor officer's for having smoked tail lamps. The ironic thing is I am a motor officer as well. I did not even think to look the bike over since it was new. Long story short no ticket given but advised on the equipment violation. Just wanted to see if other CVO Road Glide owners in California have experienced the same thing. The vehicle code violation is: CVC24600(e) which states, 24600.  During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:(e) Taillamps shall be RED IN COLOR and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear. I thought I could replace the smoked tail lamps with red ones however Harley Davidson only makes smoked and amber replacement tail lamps and no red ones. Has anyone else in California have this issue with the tail lamps.

UPDATE: 01/04/2013

I contacted Harley Davidson directly several days ago, I explained my dilemma with the tail lamps. They got back with me and advised me that the bikes tail lamps are compliant with California law and I concur with their findings. I am of the belief that the bulb is red and even though the lens is smoked when the bulb is illuminated it displays red through the smoked lens. So long story short there are no vehicle code violations with the tail lamps.    

[Vyscera]

While I no longer live in CA, and I'm not law enforcement, it is worth noting that the regulation states "during darkness" when the lamps will be glowing red. A taillamp is technically the bulb, not lense. A clear lense with a red bulb should also meet that requirement as it shines red light. The light is what needs to be visible by those deifned distances. That reg gives no appearance guide, but operational guidelines.

[King Glide]

Interesting, letter of the law says " tail lamp" not tail light, meaning even chromed part of lamp is illegal as well as the lens. That argument might lend weight in court when arguing letter vs spirit to beat a ticket. It should also be stated that the law should be updated to light bulb as we now have red bulbs but didn't when the law was written.

[Wild Card]

While I no longer live in CA, and I'm not law enforcement, it is worth noting that the regulation states "during darkness" when the lamps will be glowing red. A taillamp is technically the bulb, not lense. A clear lense with a red bulb should also meet that requirement as it shines red light. The light is what needs to be visible by those deifned distances. That reg gives no appearance guide, but operational guidelines.

Agreed.  I have got to believe that the Motor Company would equip the CA bikes with red lenses if it were the law seeing as they build the bikes to adhere to specific codes/laws. 

[dayne66]

 A friend's Son wanted smoked lenses on the back of his F150 and used a type of spray paint. I wonder if there is something for making a lens red.

[ultrarider123]

Could just move out of California....

Sorry, couldn't hep misef.

Sounds like legal gobbledygoop as it's worded in a way that darned if you do and darned if you don't.  What a country, huh

[EGrunt]

While I no longer live in CA, and I'm not law enforcement, it is worth noting that the regulation states "during darkness" when the lamps will be glowing red. A taillamp is technically the bulb, not lense. A clear lense with a red bulb should also meet that requirement as it shines red light. The light is what needs to be visible by those deifned distances. That reg gives no appearance guide, but operational guidelines.

I researched the same thing since the bulb is red however after speaking with CHP (California Highway Patrol) the lens has to be red. I knew this but wanted to make sure I was not missing something. CVC 24603(e) deals with the color of the bulb for the tail lamps. There is also another section CVC 26101 that deals with tinting of the tail lamps. Upon speaking with Harley Davidson they mentioned DOT stamps on the lens, I already knew that state law supersedes over DOT markings but I verified this as well with the CHP. I am hoping the motor company (HD) can produce red lens but I am not holding my breath. 

[grc]

Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't a lamp with a smoked lens still glow red when the red LED's or bulbs are activated?  And aren't the tail lamps always illuminated whenever the ignition is powered?  I think someone has gotten carried away in their interpretation of that regulation.  Admittedly the ones I've looked at on Harley's aren't terribly bright even at night, but they do look red to me.  Perhaps the problem comes from the requirement that they be visible from 1000 feet away.  In my experience they aren't all that visible from 100 feet away.

I would suggest that you refer anyone wanting to cite you to the Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the NHTSA.  Supposedly the vehicle met all Federal and State motor vehicle regulations when it was sold, and if some individual LEO's want to start some chit they need to start it at the source, not with the end user.  If a state wants to play jackass after the fact, they need to see about forcing the MoCo to retrofit all those illegal bikes they certified were legal when they sold them in that state.  I'm willing to bet it won't happen, and Federal regulations will trump an outdated state reg.

I personally prefer to maximize visibility with good old fashioned red lenses and bright bulbs, versus the currently trendy stealth approach of smoked lenses.  I was amazed that the Federal government allowed this.  I wasn't amazed that Harley would reduce visibility and safety in the name of style though.

Jerry

[dayne66]

I researched the same thing since the bulb is red however after speaking with CHP (California Highway Patrol) the lens has to be red. I knew this but wanted to make sure I was not missing something. CVC 24603(e) deals with the color of the bulb for the tail lamps. There is also another section CVC 26101 that deals with tinting of the tail lamps. Upon speaking with Harley Davidson they mentioned DOT stamps on the lens, I already knew that state law supersedes over DOT markings but I verified this as well with the CHP. I am hoping the motor company (HD) can produce red lens but I am not holding my breath.  

So....the MOCO is willing to pay any tickets associated with their non-conforming product?

[rdawg]

The vehicle code violation is: CVC24600(e) which states, 24600.  During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:(e) Taillamps shall be RED IN COLOR and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear. I thought I could replace the smoked tail lamps with red ones however Harley Davidson only makes smoked and amber replacement tail lamps and no red ones. Has anyone else in California have this issue with the tail lamps.

My wifes 2010 FLHXSE is the same way.  The way I read the section as long as the emitted light is red it complies.  Whether it has clear lenses or smoke the light is red coming out.  There are many newer cars with clear lenses in the recent years and they are DOT approved.  FMVSS 108 only states the light must be red not the lens.....Think they were misredading the section.  

[JCZ]

Like many laws....left to the discreation of the officer writing the ticket......the judge will sort it out.

But personally, I think the two officers that stopped EGrunt were a little over zealous and maybe a bit biased towards motorcyclists.  They might try using a little common sense along with a little discreation.  In this case, I can't help but wonder if he'd not had a badge to show them, if he'd have ended up with a couple of fix-it tickets.  Either way....petty enough to be a waste of tax payers money.

I see vehicles all up and down the state with clear lenses or smoked lenses but they all still light up red when the brakes are applied or the lights turned on.  EGrunt, if you don't mind sharing with us.....what area were you stopped in and was it the same agency that stopped you both times?

[GregKhougaz]

Good points above. It also would not be the first time someone with a custom bike got stopped by an officer just so he could look at it. This has happened to me a couple times ostensibly due to some non conforming part which was of course conforming. Since your tail lights are on whenever the bike is running, they were red! That belies the officers' claim that they were "smoked."

I just went out and checked the lenses  on my '09.  The lenses are clear but the background is dark. That is why they appear to be smoked when off.  They are clearly read when on and certainly visible for the distances the Statue requires.  They also bear the initials "SAE" which stands for:

"SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers, is a US-based organization for engineering professionals in the aerospace, automotive, and commercial vehicle industries. The Society coordinates the development of technical standards based on best practices identified and described by SAE committees and task forces comprising engineering professionals in the relevant fields. SAE International has over 120,000 members globally. Membership is granted to individuals, not through companies. Aside from standards development SAE International also devotes resources to projects and programs in STEM education, professional certification, and collegiate design competitions."

The reason I mention that is that I believe the DOT regulations trump any contrary State law or regulation.  I don't have the time to do the resort on that issue right now but I believe I have seen it and it would make sense to be any other way.  Maybe EGrunt can help us out there. 

[rdawg]

The reason I mention that is that I believe the DOT regulations trump any contrary State law or regulation.  I don't have the time to do the resort on that issue right now but I believe I have seen it and it would make sense to be any other way.  Maybe EGrunt can help us out there. 

Yes they do, states cannot make laws more restrictive than the federal side.  Same thing came up when headlight modulators became available for Motorcycles.
The lights are DOT approved and marked in the lens.

Found this at Kissan's website (modulator manufacturer)

https://www.kisantech.com/regulations.php
Title 49 USC 30103(b1) (US Codes) prohibits any state from forbidding a system that conforms to FMVSS 108. No State or Local ordinance shall usurp the authority and enforcement of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

[Wild Card]

Yes they do, states cannot make laws more restrictive than the federal side.  Same thing came up when headlight modulators became available for Motorcycles.
The lights are DOT approved and marked in the lens.

Found this at Kissan's website (modulator manufacturer)

https://www.kisantech.com/regulations.php
Title 49 USC 30103(b1) (US Codes) prohibits any state from forbidding a system that conforms to FMVSS 108. No State or Local ordinance shall usurp the authority and enforcement of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

So, didn't the original poster, who is a police officer, state the opposite? 

From EGrunt - "I already knew that state law supersedes over DOT markings but I verified this as well with the CHP."

If I'm reading that correctly, it would turn out that all officers mentioned in this story (including the original poster) are confused as to how to apply the law.  Hmmmm...

[murphy]

After reading the section quoted, I'd agree that the interpretation should have a "mis" in front of it as in misinterpretation...

Sounds like the spirit of the law was to prevent folks from using pink and green lights or by smoking or spraying the lights so that a funky version of red is displayed... we have similar laws up here.

You're probably really only going to have an issue if you come across the same guy again or anybody he trained... many of these folks interpet the law their own way and only can have the behaviour corrected by getting on the stand, giving their evidence, and being told by the Judge or Justice that they are wrong.