Mounted offroad lights/ light bars

[Nuke-E]

it is not a light unless it is ON and being USED on a public roadway.

I haven't been able to find anything to support that, but I'd be interested if it exists. Texas and other states make reference to being equipped as well as to being used. Are you suggesting they mean the same thing? Wouldn't you check the operation of all lights when you're doing an inspection? Or could a truck driver just say it's daylight so they don't need lights/reflectors/conspicuity tape?

 

 

 

( B ) Except as expressly authorized by law, a person may not operate or move equipment or a vehicle, other than a police vehicle, with a lamp or device that displays a red light visible from directly in front of the center of the equipment or vehicle.

( c ) A person may not operate a motor vehicle equipped with a red, white, or blue beacon, flashing, or alternating light unless the equipment is:

(1) used as specifically authorized by this chapter; or

(2) a running lamp, headlamp, taillamp, backup lamp, or turn signal lamp that is used as authorized by law.

 

Like RickW said, having emergency (red) lights and a siren on your vehicle isn't illegal....until you turn them ON (unless you are an emergency vehicle).

Except when it is. Many states are explicit that you cannot install or operate such a light; I know NC goes so far as to say that it's illegal to even have one not in the manufacturer's packaging unless you're authorized.

 

If it were as simple as saying "don't use these on-road", don't you think Ford, GM, Toyota, and Ram would offer a $7,000 off-road light bar package? Or that NHTSA wouldn't be so vocal in saying there's no such thing as an off-road light? I'm with the judge on this one.

[Dollytrolley]

 

Wow children........Break, brake........time-out........all sides go back to their corners and have a Cold six-pack of Dr. P and then consider ........

the legal policy of..... "Discretionary Immunity"........ Last week I paid +$3,800 for glass-room with a few lawyers to instruct me on the ........"rest of the story" (as Paul Harvey would say) regarding why laws (Federal, State, Local).......MAY be interpreted / enforced ...... or ........may "chosen" NOT be enforced and or prosecuted.

 

IF you think the "Right-to-bare-light-bars" is a sticky subject try this one on for size.......

 

Farther-in-law dies a year ago......

 

Local scumbag steals a couple thousand of the highly disabled mother-in-laws Social Security Funds from her bank account.......FBI, Social Security Administration, U S Postal Inspection Service, Oregon State Police, Oregon Department of Human Services Adult Protective Services, Oregon Atty General ALL agree that a Federal Crime (Felony) has indeed occurred..........

 

So the "perpetrator" has been "contacted" by law enforcement..........he says....."talk to my lawyer"

 

Social Security contacts FBI, FBI contacts Postal Inspection Service, Postal Inspection Service contacts Oregon State Police, Oregon State Police contacts Oregon Department of Human Services Adult Protective Services who contacts Oregon Atty General who tells us to re-contact Oregon Department of Human Services Adult Protective Services who says that perhaps I might want to try .........re-contacting.....The Social Security Administration .......again since the Oregon Department of Human Services Adult Protective Services has "somewhat limited funds to prosecute elder crimes............

 

So while I was taking some geezer-time-off in 108f temps in Death Valley last month I must have imbibed in one-too-many luke-warm Dr. Peppers and decided to throw several thousand dollars into some lawyers pockets to get this widow robbing scumbag into a cell with Buba.......

 

After a few thousand dollars funneled into the lawyers pockets they also agree that a Federal Crime has occurred.........now the real crime that needs to be solved is how to break the endless-feedback-loop of all of the law enforcement agencies that invoke "Discretionary Immunity" and then pass the hot-potato to the next agency in the food-chain..........

 

Now you might think that I have hijacked the light-bar-subject.........maybe.....maybe not.......at the end of the day it's kinda odd to see how many folks are taking issue with Phils fairly liberal let-sleeping-dogs-lay approach to the serious crime of.......light bars......

 

As for the folks that still say I have hijacked this thread ............I claim........"Discretionary Immunity"......

 

Drive on.........(Is your Immunity........Discretionary)

 

 

 

[Big5er]

I haven't been able to find anything to support that, but I'd be interested if it exists. Texas and other states make reference to being equipped as well as to being used. Are you suggesting they mean the same thing? Wouldn't you check the operation of all lights when you're doing an inspection? Or could a truck driver just say it's daylight so they don't need lights/reflectors/conspicuity tape?

 

Last comment.

First I don't know a damn thing about the law in "other states". So either stick with my comments on Texas or don't. We all know that different states have different laws. I think it is funny how in one sentence you claim a light must throw a beam and in the next you claim a light that is not turned on is still a light. You can't have it both ways unless you just want to argue.

 

Second, and this is why you have great book knowledge and no clue how to apply it. You are now want to claim that "truck drivers" can simply say that it is daylight and they don't need lights. You are throwing all your book knowledge in one pot and stirring it all together. You can not mix and compare apples and oranges and call the law one big fruit salad. The laws that apply to commercial vehicles are way different from the laws that apply to passenger cars. There is no law that allows for a passenger car to be randomly stopped and the operator forced to operate and demonstrate that all of the required equipment on his vehicle functions. The same can not be said for commercial vehicles. A commercial vehicle can be stopped (by specifically trained and authorized personnel) for a random roadside inspection with no probable cause whatsoever. They can be required to demonstrate that ALL of their lights (and many other items) are functional and in safe condition. Also, as you well know, the NHTSA does not regulate anything that isn't used on the roadway and they are also not a law enforcement agency. They are a regulatory agency.They have no authority to enforce or create any LAW concerning what you do as you drive down the road, or what stereo, rims, fender flairs, seat covers, tires, color of paint or EXTRA lighting you add to your vehicle.

You are more than aware of these differences and are only trying to confuse other people here. I think that is way beneath you but keep acting the fool if you want.

[Nuke-E]

Phil,

I'm not trying to just argue here. I'm trying to find support for the argument that a lamp not turned on isn't a lamp. The truck driver, while subject to inspections, still has the same light requirements as any non-commercial vehicle in terms of things light headlights, reflectors, fog lights, etc.--wouldn't you issue a citation under chapter 547 or an administrative code that references it? It's not really relevant to the initial question, just curious.

 

You are correct that NHTSA doesn't make law (though they're charged with writing the regulations as authorized by congress). But NHTSA's letters of interpretation are important to understanding it, even if NHTSA doesn't have power to regulate how a vehicle (or equipment) is used (which they don't), as Texas requires compliance with 108.

 

I interpret the section about light projected (which only applies if the light in the original post is NOT an auxiliary lamp) to be about an intrinsic quality of the lamp--similar to a regulation of color, dimensions, or labeling. You've come to a different conclusion, mainly that it's a regulation on emission of light, not an installed equipment regulation per se. Texas may very well have another interpretation--I'm just trying to get to where we can post a statute, ruling, or something of that sort that's useful to the original poster. If we're disagreeing here, we can bet that the officer who wrote the citation has an opinion too, and he's probably not nearly as reasonable as you are (just to be clear--no sarcasm intended).

 

 

 

Dollytrolley--I'm not arguing that the sleeping dog shouldn't have been left alone. If a light bar mounted too high and not being used is the scourge of wherever this happened, it must be a pretty boring place. We don't know all the particulars though--maybe the guy said something to agitate the officer or maybe there were complaints about someone driving around with a light bar turned on. If I were in your shoes, and the police department was out waiting around for crimes to be committed, instead of investigating one with a known victim, I'd be pissed. But a crime like the one you dealt with doesn't bring in revenue when solved. A traffic ticket on the other hand is usually easy money--so much so that Texas often has to slap the hands of towns that try to balance the budget on passing motorists. At least Texas has such a limit--many states don't.

 

I'm probably more sensitive to the issue than most, as I've made a decision to spend (not a small amount) of money designing and testing a lighting system that's legal. There are tons of illegal ways of making things appear brighter (HID bulb "kits", LED light bars, high wattage headlight bulbs, etc.), and they're often cheaper than doing things the right way. NHTSA has their hands full in the aftermarket industry--too many companies just close up shop when the regulator starts taking a look at things, to the point that it would appear they've never actually collected a penalty for some of those things. But they're dealing with a large air bag manufacturer and a pile of dead bodies instead, rightly so.

[Steve from SoCal]

Going back to the original posters question. Is the law being interpreted differently by LEO's in the great state of Texas OR is the law it self ambiguous? Phil sez the aux lights don't matter as long as they are off, an LEO in another jurisdiction cited a motorist just for having them on a vehicle and, a local Jurist agrees with the officer regarding the simple installation being illegal.

 

Is this a case where a legal opinion is known? I would like to think that Phil is correct and, the officer issuing the citation was misguided however, this is clear as mud at this point.

 

Steve .

[I'mdonewiththis forum]

Steve, that's the problem with the way a lot of laws are written. They are open to interpretation and your interpretation is not always someone else's interpretation.

[Steve from SoCal]

Steve, that's the problem with the way a lot of laws are written. They are open to interpretation and your interpretation is not always someone else's interpretation.

True however,

 

If this is as ambiguous as it seems, a court case should have heard this and ruled on it .

 

steve

[Nuke-E]

Is this a case where a legal opinion is known?

This is what I've been trying to get at. If there's an interpretation or ruling that specifically addresses mounted lights not turned on one way or the other, that's useful information for the OP.

 

If this is as ambiguous as it seems, a court case should have heard this and ruled on it .

You'd be surprised how rarely it happens. Challenging a ticket and winning is surprisingly easy, but not without expense. Often just the expense of traveling to the court exceeds the cost of paying the ticket. Add in time away from work, multiple trips, fees for requesting public records, and other costs that you're stuck with even if you win, and many people don't bother even when they're totally on the good side of the law. If you do win at the initial trial, it's often not a court of record, so there's no transcript or published decision. You can appeal and get a retrial, but you're paying your own expenses to do so, while the taxpayers fund your opposition. The prosecutor in a town making a lot of money off of a speed trap will drop lots of cases to prevent appeal to a court of record that would give ammo to other defendants.

 

You might have seen the Heien case before the US Supreme Court in 2014 involving North Carolina's brake light statute--the NC Supreme Court had never ruled on an ambiguous statute as to whether one or two lights were required, despite the law probably being unchanged for half a century. It wasn't a ticket about the brake light that was challenged though--it took someone charged with drug trafficking to actually question what the law really required. As it stands in NC now, you can't be cited so long as one of your brake lights is working.

[txdslshop]

As an update, I am being told that the State has sent out info to their State Inspection stations about Light Bars being illegal and that they are not to inspect a vehicle that is equipped with them outside of the aux lighting rule. Hard for me to believe that an off-road use only light is considered aux lighting when it is not even legal to use on the road. Jeremy

[Ronbo]

I just had my jeep inspected on Thursday with no problem.

[Big5er]

As an update, I am being told that the State has sent out info to their State Inspection stations about Light Bars being illegal and that they are not to inspect a vehicle that is equipped with them outside of the aux lighting rule. Hard for me to believe that an off-road use only light is considered aux lighting when it is not even legal to use on the road.

 

Who told you this? Follow this link and read section ( b ). Follow that to the "attached graphic". You can read the whole thing, but on page 20, pay extra attention to this:

d. Other lamps: Fog lamps, auxiliary passing lamps, auxiliary driving lamps, backup lamps, and parking lamps are not required to be inspected.

Texas state inspections cover some very specific items....and nothing else. Once again, I am calling BS on this. Auxiliary lighting devices are NOT an inspection item.

Go back to your source and ask for a copy of this "info" that was sent out to the inspection stations. I would love to see this in writing.

(PS: I'll wager a case of your favorite canned beverage that your source can't supply it)