• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Wigwag

Razel said:
Ok, so maybe I'm having a(nother) senior moment...
I believe this establishes that the brake lamps can flash, satifying the requirement of 25250.
25251 Doesn't cover flashing brake lamps, just how they're to be mounted, the color, and how they're activated.
25252 only discusses headlamps that flash.

It's in the section labled "Deceleration Warning Lights", but it's clearly referring to stop lamps ("...application of the brakes").

Which, to my way of thinking, would allow "Wig-Wag" flashing...for no more than four seconds.
Click to expand...

You can try to rationalize it all you want but the information has been given to you and it is illegal. If you don't like the answer you get then don't ask the question. If you feel like its legal them go ahead and do it. When you get stopped and cited, see if the judge agrees with you.
 
JPM said:
You can try to rationalize it all you want but the information has been given to you and it is illegal. If you don't like the answer you get then don't ask the question. If you feel like its legal them go ahead and do it. When you get stopped and cited, see if the judge agrees with you.
Click to expand...
Rationalize? Sorry, no.
Quite simply, if you see brake lights wig-wag (flashing) no more than 4 times, and they stop flashing in less than 4 seconds (25251.5 (c)), what code overides that? What would you cite the rider for?
Nothing to do with not liking the answer...
 
You'd get cited for 25250, but from my reading of 25251.5(c), it does not specifically say simultaneous. 25251.5(b) does say simultaneously, but that's referring to amber decelleration lights, not red stop lamps. It is a loophole and is most certainly unintentional. I assume that 25251.5(c) is intended to refer to the CHMSL but since it does not specify, it does present a statute for nullifying 25250.

Meaning? Barring some other unreferenced statute, they're legal, but only by oversight.
 
Originally posted by JPM
Try re-reading post #6 (Trogdor's).
Click to expand...
Post # 6, understood.
Trogdor said:
If you can't find a code that permits them, then they are illegal.

25250. Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as otherwise permitted.
Click to expand...
CVC 25251.5 (c)
Any stoplamp or supplemental stoplamp required or permitted by Section 24603 may be equipped so as to flash not more than four times within the first four seconds after actuation by application of the brakes.
Click to expand...

Unless my reading comprehension is totally whacked, the CVC section indicates flashing brake lights are permitted, within the specified guidelines.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, 26103(b) says that any adopted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard supercedes any CA statue, so if there's something there that says brakes can't flash in an alternating fashion, you could get caught on those grounds. I have no idea what or where those standards are so I'm not going to be of any help there.

Also, the guy selling them has to abide by 26104 and test their stuff and be prepared to provide proof of said testing. That however, shouldn't affect you, the operator.

I still think if you had a competent judge, you could beat a ticket relating to alternating red rear brake lights. Cite 25251.5(c) and assert its lack of the "simultaneous" verbiage. I can't imagine a pro tem having the wherewithal to find 26103 and then find a federal standard prohibiting it.

All that said, it does seem like a pretty silly thing to install...
 
AaronE said:
You'd get cited for 25250, but from my reading of 25251.5(c), it does not specifically say simultaneous. 25251.5(b) does say simultaneously, but that's referring to amber decelleration lights, not red stop lamps. It is a loophole and is most certainly unintentional. I assume that 25251.5(c) is intended to refer to the CHMSL but since it does not specify, it does present a statute for nullifying 25250.

Meaning? Barring some other unreferenced statute, they're legal, but only by oversight.
Click to expand...
Maybe unintentional to some, but in a section where they're declaring the rules of deacceleration lamps, it clearly states "stop lamps", and application of the brakes. I don't see the loophole; brake lamps have been around (and clearly defined) a heck of a lot longer than the concept of indicating a vehicle is slowing down w/o the application of brakes (deacceleration lamps).

And just for clarity, Center High Mounted Stop Lamps (CHMSL) are considered to be a supplemental stoplamp.
 
AaronE said:


All that said, it does seem like a pretty silly thing to install...
Click to expand...
Honestly? I tend to agree with that. On the other hand, it's certainly attention-grabbing.

Now that it's almost Christmas, it's time for the "Santa helmet". Again, honestly, it's the time of the year where I some how magically don't have cagers attempting to take me out (deer, on the other hand... :teeth)
 
So, I don't know why I'm intrigued by this all, but I just went and dug up the FMVSS section on lamps. It's subsection 108, and you can read the incredibly dry (but detailed) full-text here.

It makes no mention of flashing stoplamps, so I don't think 26103(b) applies.

I assert you're good to go.

On a side note: I finally found where the 9 inches apart on rear turn signals comes from! It's near the end of 108 in a pretty informative table. My undertail might be just barely illegal. They're probably 7" apart. Sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top