Rear Amber Running Lights?

[Dave39]

One of my riding friends bought me a SignalMinder for my birthday as I was driving him nuts riding behind me watching a never-ending blinking turn signal. It was easy to install and really works, but I'm not sure about the legality of the running light option. I heard that it is illegal in California (and other states) to have any continous rear lights other than red, and with the turn signals on continously, one has amber lights. I browsed through the CA motor vehicle code but couldn't find any such reference, but there is a lot of verbage regarding tail lights and amber lights. Does anyone know the real scoop?

 

[mneblett]

I'm not aware of *any* state in which rear-facing amber lights are legal.

 

One option would be to use red bulbs in the turn signal housings -- even through the yellow lens, they will show red. That said, I would not do it -- I want the most visible turn signal possible (yellow) back there. I'd look at disabling the running light function, and if I wanted running lights, install separate lighting.

[NoHeat]

I'm not aware of *any* state in which rear-facing amber lights are legal.

 

That's true in Iowa, with the exception of directional signals. Here's the item from our state code:

 

No person shall display any color of light other than red on the rear of any vehicle, except that stop lights and directional signals may be red, yellow, or amber.

 

I do use the Kisan SignalMinder with the amber rear lights turned on. I haven't been stopped yet. If that does happen, I will certainly offer to turn them off, which is easy to do.

[T__]

John, careful how you reads the truck laws,, a lot of states allow “rear facing” yellow/orange running lights but they have to be on the front side of the truck.. None that I know of allow rear facing yellow/orange running lights on the REAR of the vehicle..

 

Twisty

 

[Tony_K]

Continuously illuminated REAR FACING AMBER is illegal, plan and simple.

 

Here's the code (b)

 

Deceleration flasher, amber flashing brake lights, red flashing brake light

 

25251.5. (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate which varies exponentially with a component of deceleration.

 

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighted at any other time. The lamps shall be mounted at the same height, with one lamp located on each side of the vertical centerline of the vehicle, not higher than the bottom of the rear window, or if the vehicle has no rear window, not higher than 60 inches. The light output from each of the lamps shall not exceed 200 candlepower at any angle horizontal or above. The amber lamps may be used either separately or in combination with another lamp.

[Dave39]

Not being a lawyer, I'm sometimes befuddled by legalistic jargon. 25251.5 (a) says that a vehicle MAY be equipped with an amber light ....... and which are not lighted, etc, etc..... But the language does not specifically and clearly prohibit a non-red, non-flashing light. What else may a vehicle be equipped with in the rear? A non-flashing amber light? The "may" is the stickler. Seems very vague. The Iowa language is much more straight forward and clear. Maybe I'm clinging to straws. As a state chemist, I used to have to write Calif environmental regs and was sometimes pinned down for drafting vague regs so developed a sensitivity to them.

[Tony_K]

It's pretty clear to me considering it's legalese.

 

You can have rear facing ambers, they can do a bunch of different things like flash in sequence (with braking) and such.

 

The one thing they can't do is be continuously illuminated.

 

Simple

[smiller]

What is even the point of running your rear turn signals as running lights anyway? Is someone so oblivious that they don't see your tail light and reflectors (and in this group probably reflectorized jacket and helmet) going to see you because of the amber lights?

[Perlova]

Has anyone ever had a ticket issued to them for this infraction? I doubt that many officers would be looking for these. Considering all of the wacky neon lighting being displayed by cars, trucks etc.

[Tony_K]

Yes, it is a issuable infraction. Back a few years ago many import tuner cars were converting their rear amber indicators to dual filiament bulbs so they could run constant illumination.

 

It became due cause for being pulled over. Other infractions were usually attached along with the lights.

 

So unless you like standing out and making yourself a target don't do it.

 

 

[Dave39]

It's pretty clear to me considering it's legalese.

 

You can have rear facing ambers, they can do a bunch of different things like flash in sequence (with braking) and such.

 

The one thing they can't do is be continuously illuminated.

 

Simple

 

I guess it's nit picking, but that's not what it says. It says you may use them if they are not continuously illuminated. That is not a prohibition for other situations. It's like saying you can buy beer at the market if you are over 21. It says nothing about if you are under 21. I know what you are saying. I'm sure you're correct regarding the intent, but there should never be that kind of ambiguity in regs. In any case, I'm also doubtful about the benefit of such running lights and will likely disable them.

[PLW]

Yes, rear facing amber running lights are illegal in Kalifornia.

That said, I've been running them for five years without a problem.

You're on a BMW, not a rice rocket. No one will care.

[Bill_Walker]

I've been running mine for 40,000+ miles. I've been pulled over twice in California, and neither time have the lights been mentioned.

 

I've also ridden behind other bikes with "running lights" and I do find that it increases daylight visibility, which is my main concern (I generally avoid night riding).

[mneblett]

I guess it's nit picking, but that's not what it says. It says you may use them if they are not continuously illuminated. That is not a prohibition for other situations. It's like saying you can buy beer at the market if you are over 21. It says nothing about if you are under 21. I know what you are saying. I'm sure you're correct regarding the intent, but there should never be that kind of ambiguity in regs.

Well, since I am someone who interprets laws every day (yeah, a lawyer!), maybe I can provide a bit of perspective ...

 

Disclaimer: This is NOT legal advice!

 

Big picture, you should *always* expect there to be some ambiguity in just about *every* law.

 

There is virtually no law that can be written with more than three words in the sentence that someone can't twist to fit their desired outcome -- language just isn't that precise. That's one of the reasons we have judges: they interpret the law, (and if they are following the rules of the game) they do so in the manner they think the legislature intended, based on the language of the statute and the comments in the legislative history.

 

And that's where the "but it doesn't *EXACTLY* say I can't" argument falls flat -- a judge will tell you to "use common sense, boy!" If the law says you can do something because you're over 21, in order for the law to have any reason to exist, the presumption is that those under 21 can't do the something. Similarly, if the intent is to ban continuous rear amber lights, no amount of "but it doesn't say that" will get ya off the hook.

[ESokoloff]

Does anyone know the real scoop?

Well I know that I've run mine for 5+ years with 60+k with out any trouble.

I dim them at night & run on full during daylight.

[T__]

I have a LEO friend & a while ago I asked him if he had ever pulled a motorcycle over for rear facing yellow running lights (we had a very similar thread here a while ago).. He said no he never had.. I then asked if he knew they were illegal & he said sure he did..

He went on to say things like improper rear lighting unless it is evident that it is causing problems to other drivers is usually not bothered with.. Those are the little things they use if needed to pull a driver over at 3am to sniff his breath or look into his glassy eyes for drugs.. Or maybe check for a cycle endorsement or if a reason is needed to just pull a rider over for a look/see..

 

Twisty

 

[r77toy]

Does anyone know the real scoop?

Well I know that I've run mine for 5+ years with 60+k with out any trouble.

I dim them at night & run on full during daylight.

 

How do you dim them at night?

I've run them for years, no problems.

[elkroeger]

What is even the point of running your rear turn signals as running lights anyway? Is someone so oblivious that they don't see your tail light and reflectors (and in this group probably reflectorized jacket and helmet) going to see you because of the amber lights?

 

I'm going to suppose that yes, they will see me, most of the time. Of course every situation is different, and so is the effect, if any. But picture this: Dark rainy night on the interstate, with heavy Seattle traffic. Commonly, it's hard to tell what a single tail light up in the inky mist might be - a car farther up, a car 1/2 in a lane, malfunctioning lights? I believe a pair of amber lights on either side clear up the question readily. And the two extra lights really make the bike stand out. I've seen it myself on other bikes, and the effect is remarkable. I'll take my chances with an unlikely ticket.

 

I don't suppose that the truly inattentive drive will miraculously open their eyes, but it will certainly help most people understand what they're looking at, which in theory, will save my bacon.

 

Also, I've had them on there for 2 1/2 years, and about 30k miles. In that time, I got one ticket for speeding, and the lights weren't mentioned.

[ESokoloff]

Does anyone know the real scoop?

Well I know that I've run mine for 5+ years with 60+k with out any trouble.

I dim them at night & run on full during daylight.

 

How do you dim them at night?

 

Look here..... page 20(23).

 

 

 

 

[TestPilot]

Here is a little more legalese. FMVSS 108 requires that tail lamps (rear running lights) be red. Manufacturers (OE and aftermarket), dealers, repair shops, etc. are prohibited from selling or installing parts not in compliance with these specs. Companies like Kisan could be held in violation if their products turn amber turn signals into running lights. The Feds have prosecuted other aftermarket manufacturers for similar violations, although motorcycles have, so far, been below their radar.

[Ken H.]

Has anyone ever had a ticket issued to them for this infraction?

I was stopped for something else once and the officer commented on it. Said he would write it up unless I turned them off. Which I promptly did. Lucky I remembered the finger pushes right then to do so in the Kisan!