[flash]

again, you have to understand that the problem is that EVERYTHING about a car is illegal, unless specifically provided for in a law or code.  it's not like criminal law.  it's a huge bureaucratic debacle to get a car certified by DOT.  foglights may be used with, but not in substitution of the headlamps in california.  that does not allow them to be used alone, during the day, at night, or any other time.  it's pretty basic.  if you have them on, but not the headlamps on, they are in substitution, and therefore illegal.  it has nothing to do with need of light, or anything else.

 

i've gone round and round with the courts about lights, more than once.  it was not pretty.  that's why i am so certain.

 

as for the canadian thing, i looked into this a long time ago, when i was considering the rear fog lights.  the canadian daytime running lights are different than the US fog lights.  it's not just the relay.  it also does not change the law in california.  further, modifying your lights on your car, including changing to a brighter bulb, is against federal law.

 

i know countless guys who have gotten tickets over their bright lights, wrong lights, and misuse of their lights.  cops hate glare.  it's a pet peave.

 

but hey - go ahead.  find out for yourself.  in fact, why not argue with them about it when they pull you over?  see how much fun that is and what it gets you.

 

take the advice from experience and research or don't.  i'm done here.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I'm just thinking of the poor interstate truck drivers, if each state has different VC rules, how are those guys supposed to keep anything straight ?! Or maybe commercial,vehicles are subject to more uniform VC provisions and are exempt from all of this lights and other rules nonsense that varies from state to state .. But you guys who drive to other states better pick up those states VC and read up on all the rules , lol.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

DOT regulations are federal. They are not relevant to the application of this particular California statute. I will certainly bow to Flash's expertise when it comes to our wonderful automobiles. But I think, after 30+ years of practicing criminal law, I just might know a little something about this area. The statute proscribes the use of foglamps as a "substitution of headlamps". This is the critical phrase. In interpreting a statute, meaning must be given to all words and phrases. The legislature could have easily stated that foglamps could not be used alone. Period. By instead stating that they could not be used in substitution of headlights, the clear implication is that they can't be used instead of headlights when headlights are required. An interpretation that foglamps can never be legally turned on without also activating the headlamps would have an absurd result as it would violate the law to sit in a parking space and turn on your foglamps! If any of our California brethren, or any others visiting California get a ticket for this particular violation, I'll be glad to help out. My advice to to go ahead and run foglamps all day long if it floats your boat. Just don't do it at night or when its raining. I often use my foglamps as DRLs when I'm on a windy, two lane road through the trees experiencing lots of shadows on the road, and I will continue to do so without any worries.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

i agree Smedley.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - ok - let's try once more

 

this is where i often get into discussions with some defence lawyers.  they often just have to search for some kind of loophole they think is there, and convince somebody else that it is, whether real or not.  it's what they do to get their client off, even though they may be guilty.  prosecutors would approach this from an absolute.  but, that is why the adversarial system works, for the most part.  personally, i would prefer the search for truth, not just a way out, but that's an entirely different topic.

 

again, there is NO qualifying language anywhere about "when needed" or anything else.  it really isn't needed.  but you don't get to interject your own language for your own purposes.  if you could do that, then we might as well say "you can't drive your car into a crowded shopping mall, unless you think it's needed".  i would argue that it is plain common sense, and that the section clearly specifies when you can use them, and when you cannot.  headlamps would not be used unless needed.  similarly other lights would not be used unless needed.  it would be just as dumb as using your windshield wipers on a bright sunny day.

 

the argument that the legislature "could" have added the words "not alone" does not hold water, as further evidence of the intention is that you cannot drive with your tail lights and parking lights on, without your headlights.  we all know it, but danged if i can find the section that specifies it.  everything about having to have them on the car, and what they must be able to do is there, but not when they are to be used and not.  sure, the legislature "could" have written it, but is it really necessary?  isn't it just common sense?  there is an underlying assumption in law that we approach things from the perspective of the "reasonable mind".  it's first year law school stuff.   it is not reasonable to use a light not designed to be a daytime running light as one, regardless of whether or not you can "get away with it".

 

section 24402 further specifies when auxiliary lights may be used (fog and driving lights are technically auxiliary lights)

 

to be clear, and i think this is where the real argument is, there is a design difference between daytime running lights and fog lights.  the lens, bulb, and beam projection is different.  they are not interchangeable.  daytime running lights are designed to be seen, but not to provide or assist sight.  they are more like side marker lights in their intention.  they are not as bright, diffused, and non-glaring.  fog lights are none of those.

 

for those interested in brightness limits.  1 candlepower is 12.57 lumens.  from there you can calculate incandescent watts by dividing by 15.

 

side note:  per section 40151, if an officer feels your light does not meet DOT standard, he can require you to remove it within 24 hours, or even if it does meet DOT standard, but is maladjusted, wrong bulb, or whatever, he can require you to correct it within 48 hours.

 

but hey - lbpesq is volunteering to defend you in court for free, so what is the harm?

 

p.s. - as for qualifications, while not a lawyer (married to one is enough, though i do dabble now and then), i did focus on pre-law in college, but found it boring, and moved on to engineering instead.  however, i was a traffic school instructor for a while.  i had appeared in court so many times for traffic stuff, and won most of my cases, that a judge hooked me up.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[robadams56]

Yet, for all of this, how many of you see cars driving with LED colored lights around the headlights, underneath the car, in the grill, etc. and yet I never see or hear of them being pulled over. Recently I saw a car on the highway with the LED lights around the headlights alternating from red to blue.  No it was not an undercover car, just an idiot.  

 

My point is, unlike my younger years when I was pulled over for blue-dots on a VW, I'm not certain the authorities are enforcing these laws.

 

Oh, and my profile pic.....that's a traffic cam that caught me being chased by the authorities because I'm using my fogs as DRL's.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

My co-worker's ( and adjacent office neighbor ) son is a highway patrol officer and I hear daily stories of his "adventures" .. mostly humorous incidents, the kind where you have to shake your head in disbelief as to the number of imbeciles out there at the wheel .

Having said that , obnoxious lights occasionally come into conversations ; no officer is going to stop you for having any of your car's factory / OE lights on , whether fog lights or headlights , etc. regardless of conditions , and regardless whether or not it's technically against the VC to do so. And if you do get stopped it'll be a one in a million case where that officer had a really bad day ( maybe got home to find some other dude jump out of his wife's bedroom window driving off with the fog lights turned on :-) ) and is hell-bent on giving out tickets for the smallest infractions when get gets back to work . But back to my coworker's son ; unless he has more important things to do at the time, he will pull over any and all drivers with those aftermarket hyper bright headlights , blue lights , running LEDs where they don't belong, every single time ! I don't know about other police but I'd expect the overhelming majorty are annoyed by those kind of lights, just as much, if not more , than most of us are and if you do see cars on the road with that set up I'd venture to say it's only a matter of days before they get stopped . Unfortunately there are hundreds of others who will take their place ..until they also get stooped. As it should be, it's a safety issue - danger to oncoming drivers' visibility . No one cares about OE DRLs, fog lights or headlights being turned on in the middle of the day whether you run them by themselves, or all at the same time, yada , yada . Except when it rains , when you might get stopped if your headlights happen to be off ( again, a safety issue ) . But I'll bet you you can have just the fog lights on in the rain with your wipers running, and ther is little chance a patrol car will pull you over for that..unless they have nothing better to do of course .. IMHO

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Flash wrote:

 

"the argument that the legislature "could" have added the words "not alone" does not hold water, as further evidence of the intention is that you cannot drive with your tail lights and parking lights on, without your headlights.  we all know it, but danged if i can find the section that specifies it.  everything about having to have them on the car, and what they must be able to do is there, but not when they are to be used and not.  sure, the legislature "could" have written it, but is it really necessary?  isn't it just common sense?  there is an underlying assumption in law that we approach things from the perspective of the "reasonable mind".  it's first year law school stuff.   it is not reasonable to use a light not designed to be a daytime running light as one, regardless of whether or not you can "get away with it"."

 


The section Flash can't find is California Vehicle Code Sec. 24800:


"No vehicle shall be driven at any time with the parking lamps lighted except when the lamps are being used as turn signal lamps or when the headlamps are also lighted."


Having experienced "first year law school stuff", along with 2nd and 3rd year "law school stuff", and over 30 years of "practicing criminal defense law stuff", I must respectfully disagree with Flash's legal analysis in this area.


Now let me tell you all how to properly design a supercharger for the 968. hehehehe

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

thanks for finding that.  i'm glad you did.  it establishes the precedent for disallowing the running of lights by themselves, when they are designed to be run with others, and further supports my argument.

 

again though, the issue is that fog lights are not the same as daytime running lights.  if you want to change them to the daytime running version, fine.  that being said though, you could then run afoul of federal law which prohibits the alteration of any light on the car.

 

solve the problem by merely adding daytime running lights.  there are street legal kits for this.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Believe what you want to.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I was reading a post on the Maserati forum which indicated drivers from the UK who take their cars across to the the "continental" European countries adjust their low beam lights so as not to blind oncoming drivers , because the ROW cars headlights are all asymmetric . See imge below . So here's the million dollar question : are U.S. cars head lights asymmetric as well ?! If they are , I certainly never noticed..

   

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

the headlights on my 2014 Cayenne certainly light up the right further ahead than the left side.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Waylander]

you can check your 968's lights,

 

If you look at the markings on the glass, you should see a little arrow, which ever way that points is the direction of the dip beam, when i first got my car i had one LHD and one RHD light, going from low to high and back again made the car look like it was crosseyed

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.