Aftermarket Parts

This question was sent to me in a PM and I am posting it here because it is an issue that comes up a lot on this board and is well suited for this forum.

Q: Are flushmounts illegal? Majority of the bikes I see now have this type of set up. If it's illegal, why are retailers allowed to sell them?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b.../Picture003.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b.../Picture001.jpg

First off, assuming the lights shown in the pictures you sent meet the required candlepower to achieve the required visibility, I don't see a problem with them or any other flushmounts that get the job done. Technically, if the device(s) modify the output and are not approved by DOT or CHP, they are illegal, but this area is more of a "spirit of the law" thing. Again, if they get the job done, they are going to be okay. If they can't be seen in the dark at 500', you may have problems. If they can't be seen in the dark at 300', you will likely have MORE problems. One of my pet-peeves is the dark tinted lens covers over the brake lights.

As for why the dealers sell them.. because people buy them! Most illegal mods are sold in packaging or with warnings that clearly state it is not intended for street use. For example, the valve-stem flashing LEDs and the LEDs for windshield wipers on cars. I see these everywhere and they are all clearly marked "OFF ROAD USE ONLY" or "NO INTENDED FOR STREET USE." Many of these flashy OFF-ROAD items are not legal in ANY of the 50 states for use on the highway.

I used to always say, "They'll sell you a wheelbarrow at Home Depot too, but that doesn't mean you can mount it on your hood and drive around." The fact is, these manufacturers KNOW their items are being used on the street and they are only marking them for off-road use to cover their asses. That does not change the ultimate responsibility. As a driver, you are responsible for the vehicle you are operating. As the owner, you are responsible for your vehicle's equipment if it is operated on the street with your consent.

I cite drivers for 24002 CVC on a regular basis. This is a catch-all section that says you cannot operate a vehicle that is not equipped in compliance with the CVC. If it is blatantly obvious the vehicle does not comply with the code, 24002(b) CVC applies. If you put crap on there or remove equipemt that makes it unsafe or dangerous, then 24002(a) CVC applies. If the driver is not the owner, then a ticket goes out to the owner to make correction.

First off I agree with you and I have a similar enforcement policy. HOWEVER, there are other officers in my department the enforcement the vehicle code to the letter. Being stuck on the desk, I spend most of my day signing off citations. One of the sections that gets a lot of use is 24003 cvc unlawful lighting. Anything that is not DOT approved is a technical violation. So if you put those lights on your bike, its a roll of the dice as to who may stop you, and what they may decide to cite you for.

Your response intrigues me, MM4L [strokes beard thoughtfully].

CVC 24002 states:

24002. (a) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard.
(b) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is not equipped as provided in this code.

How exactly do you cite someone for violating this section of the vehicle code? In other words, how do you write the citation?

mud said:

unlawful to operate any vehicle which is in an unsafe condition

Click to expand...

I think this is the key wording. If the lighting does not allow for you to be seen, then it is in an unsafe condition.

I am not an officer, but I do have experience in writing citation (Code of Federal Regulations).

24004cvc is failure to comply. In other words I cite you (for a hazardous violation) and you contiue to operate the vehicle without repair. Then, if i see you again, I cite you for 24004cvc, failure to comply, big fine and it gets ugly.

24003cvc is a catch-all section for unlawfull lighting, in some officers views, anything that is not DOT approved, is unlawful lighting.

Stoner said:

24002cvc is failure to comply. In other words I cite you (for a hazardous violation) and you contiue to operate the vehicle without repair. Then, if i see you again, I cite you for 24002cvc, failure to comply, big fine and it gets ugly.

24003cvc is a catch-all section for unlawfull lighting, in some officers views, anything that is not DOT approved, is unlawful lighting.

Click to expand...

Actually 24004 CVC is the section for continued operation after notice by a peace officer. If I can prove you were previously warned/cited or advised by any peace officer that your vehicle is non-compliant and I catch you operating it with that deficiency, then I usually do cite for 24004 CVC.

Mud.. to answer your question, read the text of the code. If your vehicle is being operated in an unsafe condition (like no bumpers, no headlamps at night or an unlawfully tinted windshield, particularly at night) or which is not safely loaded (like an excessively large load that exceeds the capabilities of the brakes, tire load max or suspension), and which presents an immediate safety hazard, then 24002(a) CVC clearly applies. THis is a vehicle that is subjectively dangerous/hazardous and it being operated on a roadway. If it is not equipped as required.. no front plate, no rearview mirror, missing gascap, bald tires, etc.. but not an immediate safety hazard, then 24002(b) CVC applies.

In most cases, if the owner is the driver, then I would simply cite the driver/owner for the primary equipment violation with a fix-it ticket. But, if the driver is not the owner, I usually cite the driver for 24002(b) CVC and then issue an owner's responsibility citation per 40001 CVC. That is a fix-it ticket that goes to the registered owner. I usually don't cite a non-owner/driver with a fix-it ticket because while they are responsible for operating the non-compliant vehicle, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to be responsible for correcting an equipment violation on a vehicle that they may not have regular access to and to which they may have no financial interest.. for example, if you borrow your buddy's pick-up to move a non-op bike and it has a broken windshield.. if you get stopped, you are unlawfully and knowingly operating a non-compliant vehicle. But, should I expect you to pay to have the windshield replaced in order to get off the hook for a $175 equipment violation (if uncorrected)?

Before you answer, consider this: Once I had to arrest a guy on a $750 warrant for an uncorrected headlight ticket. He had been driving his g/f's VW bug and it had a headlamp out. When he got to her house, they broke-up and she drove her car off into the sunset with his CD collection. Meanwhile, he had no way to show proof of correction and in-fact the car was apparently sold soon after they broke up. After a few years of failing to appear (FTA) in court for the ticket, it had snowballed into a $750 warrant. That is why I cite non-owner/drivers for their specific violation and send the registered owner a fix-it ticket.

Is there such a thing as "DOT-approval", or is there a set of specifications that the DOT sets, and the manufacturers must adhere to such? The reason I ask is because I seem to recall reading about this before, where a DOT representative said it would take them a good while to go through and approve or deny each and every manufacturer of aftermarket parts.

bluenoser said:

Is there such a thing as "DOT-approval", or is there a set of specifications that the DOT sets, and the manufacturers must adhere to such? The reason I ask is because I seem to recall reading about this before, where a DOT representative said it would take them a good while to go through and approve or deny each and every manufacturer of aftermarket parts.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are DOT standards and SNELL standards. The SNELL standards are much more rigid. All that is required is the DOT compliance (that is what is often referred to as a "DOT approved" helmet). SNELL tests each model and certifies each type of helmet. DOT standards are set by the Department of Transportation (hence the abreviation). SNELL standards are set by SNELL which is a private lab/foundation. The SNELL standard is much higher than DOT requires. BTW, SNELL is constantly trying to lobby DOT to raise their standards in order to reduce head trauma and fatalities.

Hi motorman4life,
So let me (newbie) ask you for some advice on my bike (see picture below). I recently bought it and the undertail looks like this. I have no idea if this thing meets DOT standards or not. Can you tell me what all needs to be changed to comply with the standards so that I don't get a ticket? Thanks.

Front side ...

vin said:

Hi motorman4life,
So let me (newbie) ask you for some advice on my bike (see picture below). I recently bought it and the undertail looks like this. I have no idea if this thing meets DOT standards or not. Can you tell me what all needs to be changed to comply with the standards so that I don't get a ticket? Thanks.

Click to expand...

The obvious ones are

1) no plate 5200 CVC
2) no red reflector 24607 CVC

As for what is DOT approved; all the DOT approved lighting equipment I have seen have DOT stamped on them or embedded in the plastic. Take a look at your car tail lights for instance. You'll see DOT SAE and some other numbers in the plastic. Then look at your turn signals and see if they are there.

Like motorman mentions, as long as they get the job done, you'll most likely not be hassled about the technical compliance with the DOT standards. But I hope you get the other two violations fixed

Thanks. Yes, I'm researching on all this and will get it done soon. Just trying to figure out what all needs to be done. Found some posts on the reflectors, plates ...etc:

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132890&highlight=24607

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129507&highlight=24607

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120059&highlight=24607

If you ride at night you'll need to light your plate when you get one.

You could also be cited for that pipe as well. But unless it's really loud, you're very unlucky, or you fail the attitude test, *most* LEOs will let it slide.

Edit: the threads you listed cover it pretty well.

Trogdor said:

The obvious ones are

1) no plate 5200 CVC
2) no red reflector 24607 CVC

As for what is DOT approved; all the DOT approved lighting equipment I have seen have DOT stamped on them or embedded in the plastic. Take a look at your car tail lights for instance. You'll see DOT SAE and some other numbers in the plastic. Then look at your turn signals and see if they are there.

Like motorman mentions, as long as they get the job done, you'll most likely not be hassled about the technical compliance with the DOT standards. But I hope you get the other two violations fixed

Click to expand...

+1

Cops are bored when they site u for this kinda thing. I get bored.

TerryNugwin said:

Cops are bored when they site u for this kinda thing. I get bored.

Click to expand...

BS. It's about safety too. I agree with above and may add a few words as well.

For CHP to certify certain bikes (Usually upon salvage title transactions) they will check them over pretty well. I have read about there being certain heights, spacing in inches, and of course the infamous candle power rating... For compliance.

Also as stated above, no plate, no plate light, and no rear facing red reflective surface of X"xX" dimensions.