Print

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

[B.A.]

Motor1 - IDK.  I was stopped for "gray" tinted turn signals.  It's been two years ago when my '11 was new.  I'm sorry to say I don't remember if I was "home" (Illinois) or some other state.  Been in a lot of states in 2 years.  And, yes, I feel like an idiot.  CRS!  In any case, got a warning.  Changed to red lenses at my earliest convenience.  Was not and is not worth the hassle.

grc - Cali out of control?  Nah, never.

Seems obvious states can supercede.  Geeez!  My 1957 Chevy had a California bumper on it!!!  Kinda collectable.  It was one piece as opposed to all others being three pieces.

Gotta luv the dot gov, eh?!

[rdawg]

I'm with you (and apparently a number of others here) Jerry.....I think it's a non issue.

But I can't say I wouldn't like to see somebody get a ticket for it and let the courts settle it if they are teaching officers to go after this kind of thing.

Rich, have you heard of any training regarding this for the CHP or is it just local agencies getting a bit over zealous like they did for awhile with exhaust?

JC
We haven't had anything on MC's including exhaust.... but I think in 2013 the exhaust issue will be coming back.  We have training every January on the new laws going into effect but haven't seen the booklets they hand out.  Last equipment type training was for street racers put on by Fresno PD, seems they went after the emissions laws with the street racers for modifications and then sent violators to the smog referee.  Seemed more harassment than anything else.....IMHO

I would write a letter to CHP HQ on the issue and they would have to respond in writing.  Then carry a copy if needed.

[EGrunt]

I updated my original post and believe this issue to be closed with no vehicle code violation with the tail lamps. I contacted Harley Customer Service several days ago and I heard back from them stating the bikes tail lamps are compliant with vehicle code of California. I am of the belief that since the bulb is red and the lens is smoked when the bulb is illuminated it displays red so there is no CVC 24600(e) violation. I want to thank Rdawg who provided insight on this matter. I was wrong in stating that State law superseded Federal law, that what I get from listening to another Officer at work. I should have known better after spending 20 years in Marine Corps I learned not to listen to sea bag lawyers on any important issue. Thanks again.   

[CVOStreetglide]

I updated my original post and believe this issue to be closed with no vehicle code violation with the tail lamps. I contacted Harley Customer Service several days ago and I heard back from them stating the bikes tail lamps are compliant with vehicle code of California. I am of the belief that since the bulb is red and the lens is smoked when the bulb is illuminated it displays red so there is no CVC 24600(e) violation. I want to thank Rdawg who provided insight on this matter. I was wrong in stating that State law superseded Federal law, that what I get from listening to another Officer at work. I should have known better after spending 20 years in Marine Corps I learned not to listen to sea bag lawyers on any important issue. Thanks again.  

Hopefully you got it in writing from the Motor Company. That's a letter I would carry in my hard bag in a plastic baggie for the next time I was stopped.....and you know there will be a next time.

BTW: THANKS FOR PROTECTING US HERE IN THE US.  It's not safe anywhere much these days.

SEMPER FI

Jerry (also)

[JCZ]

I updated my original post and believe this issue to be closed with no vehicle code violation with the tail lamps. I contacted Harley Customer Service several days ago and I heard back from them stating the bikes tail lamps are compliant with vehicle code of California. I am of the belief that since the bulb is red and the lens is smoked when the bulb is illuminated it displays red so there is no CVC 24600(e) violation. I want to thank Rdawg who provided insight on this matter. I was wrong in stating that State law superseded Federal law, that what I get from listening to another Officer at work. I should have known better after spending 20 years in Marine Corps I learned not to listen to sea bag lawyers on any important issue. Thanks again.   

Thanks a bunch for the clarification.  And welcome to the board, thanks a bunch for your service and Semper Fi. 

However, it is a bit concerning that you'd be stopped by two different agencies and that one is actually teaching the false information regarding their motorcycle training.


Note to Rich......I sold you a bike with legal tail lights, you can breath easy now.

[Glenncarp]

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

I think we are seeing a strange interpretation of laws now in Colorado. Whether you agree with legalizing marijuana or not, Colorado legalized it. and that only means this was done on the state level. If the Federal Government decided to raid the state, they could do so and arrest anyone in possession of the drug as it is still illegal on the Federal level.

Same hold true for this stupid statute: One could argue in California court that the tail lights passed FDOT inspections, however California would not care as you agree to State laws when you live in that state.

Sorry to say, California is a weird State when it comes to MV laws, I only learned of "smogging" a car by watching Judge Judy!!! LMAO

[Fourthaxis]

I updated my original post and believe this issue to be closed with no vehicle code violation with the tail lamps.

Sorry to dig this back up, but I just joined to find out if you were actually ticketed and if you came to a resolution with the state of CA...  Though I don't own one of these bikes, I have an Ford F250 with tinted tail lights, PLUS supplemental DOT red reflectors on my bumper, yet received a ticket for ca vc 24600. 

This section seems to apply to night, and I'm further confused by cars such as the Prius and Nissan leaf which have clear lenses, and no red reflector in the location of the lighting...

In regards to your situation, or anyone else in CA who has trouble with factory equipment, the burden can be shifted to the manufacturer.  http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26104.htm

V C Section 26104 Required Laboratory Tests

Required Laboratory Tests

26104.  (a) Every manufacturer who sells, offers for sale, or manufactures for use upon a vehicle devices subject to requirements established by the department shall, before the device is offered for sale, have laboratory test data showing compliance with such requirements. Tests may be conducted by the manufacturer.

(b) The department may at any time request from the manufacturer a copy of the test data showing proof of compliance of any device with the requirements established by the department and additional evidence that due care was exercised in maintaining compliance during production. If the manufacturer fails to provide such proof of compliance within 30 days of notice from the department, the department may prohibit the sale of the device in this state until acceptable proof of compliance is received by the department.

[rdawg]

Sorry to dig this back up, but I just joined to find out if you were actually ticketed and if you came to a resolution with the state of CA...  Though I don't own one of these bikes, I have an Ford F250 with tinted tail lights, PLUS supplemental DOT red reflectors on my bumper, yet received a ticket for ca vc 24600. 

This section seems to apply to night, and I'm further confused by cars such as the Prius and Nissan leaf which have clear lenses, and no red reflector in the location of the lighting...

In regards to your situation, or anyone else in CA who has trouble with factory equipment, the burden can be shifted to the manufacturer.  http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26104.htm

V C Section 26104 Required Laboratory Tests

Required Laboratory Tests

26104.  (a) Every manufacturer who sells, offers for sale, or manufactures for use upon a vehicle devices subject to requirements established by the department shall, before the device is offered for sale, have laboratory test data showing compliance with such requirements. Tests may be conducted by the manufacturer.

(b) The department may at any time request from the manufacturer a copy of the test data showing proof of compliance of any device with the requirements established by the department and additional evidence that due care was exercised in maintaining compliance during production. If the manufacturer fails to provide such proof of compliance within 30 days of notice from the department, the department may prohibit the sale of the device in this state until accep' table proof of compliance is received by the department.
'tinted

Can't answer for EGRUNT but I don't think he was ever cited for these lights since they are factory OEM lights.
As for your Ford F250 lights, I assume they are not OEM lights or have been modified.  The reflectors are not required to be combined with the light assemblies, however, it is probably more cost effective to the industry to do that.  They are mounted separately as the prius does and several other models do.  The purpose of the reflector is to show the outlines of the vehicle if it were to to be blacked out at night, so there is no real need to be combined with the tail light/ stop light assemblies.

As far as clear lenses, it just seems to be the style, as long as the lights are red/amber when illuminated they are legal when the proper testing per 26104 is done.....