A California Superior Court Clarifies
The Use of Auxiliary Lights For Off Highway Enthusiasts.
In California off road lights must be covered while driving
on a highway, as defined in section #24411 of the California Vehicle Code.
The California Vehicle Code also defines auxiliary driving lights under section
#24402 as not needing covers. Each statute carefully describes the
requirements for each type of light.
So what?s the problem?
The confusion arose when the California Highway Patrol began
defining ?Off Road Light? as any auxiliary light without SAE (Society of
Automotive Engineers) approval. Since this ?approval? requirement is
not in the law, it was never administered fairly by the California Highway
Patrol.
Conflicting statements from the Highway Patrol confused the
public particularly if you were an off highway enthusiast. For example,
have you ever heard of a Highway Officer stopping a sports car to check for SAE
approval on their uncovered auxiliary lights?
Recently the El Dorado County Superior Court issued a
decision that clarifies California State Law regarding the use of Auxiliary
Driving Lights. A three Judge panel over-turned a lower court?s decision
in which a Highway Patrol Officer had cited an off highway enthusiast for not
having his two auxiliary driving lights covered. The Officer testified that if
the auxiliary lights were not marked SAE Approved then they were ?off road
lights? and must be covered onthe highway.
I was unable to convince the Municipal Court in South Lake
Tahoe, California to interpret the law correctly as they held that the
individual CHP officer had the latitude to administer the auxiliary light laws
based on their own judgement/interpretation. But now there is a court case
that clarifies issues surrounding auxiliary lights.
After being cited by a CHP officer for not having ?off road
light? covers, I pleaded not guilty in the Lake Tahoe Municipal Court. I
testified that my lights were actually ?auxiliary driving lights? (in
accordance with section #24402 of the California Vehicle Code). Initially
I lost the case, but won on appeal. Since the original ticket was only $86
I kept my costs down by writing the appeal and representing myself.
During the process I learned several facts that would help
anyone who installs auxiliary lights on their vehicle:
In Summary the court held that:
"For many years the Highway Patrol has given
conflicting statements about the use of off road lights as driving lights.
In addition individual officers had the latistrative regulations pertaining to
driving lights do not refer to any SAE requirements. While authority to
regulate driving lights is vested in the CHP, there is no evidence that CHP has
promulgated such a regulation and if so, what that regulation is.?
"In this case the driver had installed two auxiliary
lights on the bumper of his 4x4 vehicle in accordance with the California
Vehicle Code section pertaining to Auxiliary Driving and Passing Lights
(#24402). His auxiliary lights were 38? above the ground: well within
the 16-42? limit. Section #24402 also states that auxiliary driving
lamps are designed for supplementing the upper beam from headlamps and may not
be lighted with the lower beam. To insure compliance he wired the
auxiliary lights into the dimmer switch thereby limiting their use to only high
beam operation. The auxiliary driving lamps were equipped with 110 watt
bulbs, which is above the legal limit for primary lamps,
but these are auxiliary driving lamps--not primary lamps."
The Superior Court?s Ruling is binding in all of the
Municipal Courts within El Dorado County and most likely it would be honored by
Municipal Courts throughout the State of California if the opinion was brought
to the court?s attention. Since this opinion is not published in any
legal publication/journal review the best way to notify the court, if you are
ticketed, is to bring a certified copy of the Appellate Court?s Decision to
your hearing.
To receive a certified copy send $4.25 in a self-addressed,
stamped envelope to:
El Dorado Superior Court,
495 Main Street,
Placerville, CA 95667
requesting Apellate Decision No. PV00-1706, The People of the
State of California vs. Richard Russell.
Since the US Department of Transportation (DOT) does not have
any regulations prohibiting a vehicle?s owner from installing auxiliary
driving lights, of any power, nor do they have any regulations requiring
auxiliary lights to be covered, it becomes extremely important to read and
understand your own state?s laws regarding ?Off Road? and ?Auxiliary
Driving? lights.
The Courts Ruling:
EL DORADO CO. SUPERIOR CT.
FILED 12-30-96_
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF EL DORADO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
No . PV-001706
vs.
APPELLATE DECISION RICHARD RUSSELL
Appellant was cited on December 14, 1995, by CHP Officer
Lord for a violation of Vehicle Code 24411, which requires auxiliary lamps
on an off-road vehicle to be covered or hooded and turned off whenever
he vehicle is driven upon a highway. Specifically, the section
states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a vehicle
may be equipped with not more than eight lamps for use as headlamps
while the vehicle is operated or driven off the highway. The lamps shall
be mounted at a height of not less than 16 inches from the ground, or more
than 12 inches above the top of the passenger compartment, at any place between
the front of the vehicle and a line lying on a point 40 inches to the rear of
the seat occupied by the driver, shall be wired independently of all other
lighting circuits, and, whenever the vehicle is operated
or driven upon a highway, shall be covered or hooded with an opaque hood or
cover, and turned off.
Officer Lord testified that he looks at the auxiliary light
to see if there is an SAE stamp; if not, he considers it to be an auxiliary
light which must be covered pursuant to Vehicle Code 24411.
Appellant contends that the two auxiliary lamps on his
vehicle are "driving lights" and conform to Vehicle Code 24402 and are
not "off-road lights" regulated by Vehicle Code 24411. Appellant
submits Federal Motor Safety regulations and Department of Transportation
regulations that along with the provisions of Vehicle Code 24402 make no
provision for the lights being covered or requiring SAE approval.
Vehicle Code ? 24402 provides, in relevant part:
Any motor vehicle may be equipped with not to exceed two
auxiliary driving lamps mounted on the front at a height
of not less than 16 inches nor more than 42 inches.
Driving lamps are lamps designed for supplementing the
upper beam from headlamps and may not be lighted with the lower beam.
Driving, passing, and fog lights are all "auxiliary
lighting equipment" within the definition of Vehicle Code ? 375(a);
similarly, all three types are considered auxiliary lights under the California
regulations pertaining to motor vehicles [13 Cal. Admin. C. ? 710].
Auxiliary lamps must meet certain mechanical testing requirements set forth in
13 Cal. Admin. C. ? 711; there is not evidence in the record that
appellant's lights failed to meet any of these requirements. Each type of
auxiliary light must meet certain photometric test requirements; while passing
lamps and fog lamps must meet certain SAE requirements, driving lights must only
meet requirements specified in 13 Cal. Admin. C. 712 (a) ;there are no SAE
requirements, and there is no evidence that appellant's lights failed to meet
the requirements set forth in the Administrative Code.
There is no federal regulation of driving, passing, or fog
lights; the California Highway Patrol is therefore authorized to establish
requirements for such lighting [13 Cal. Admin. C. ?? 622;623(b)].
There is no evidence in the record of what, if any,
requlrements CHP has established for the regulation of this equipment. There is
no way of ascertaining from the law and the record in this case whether Officer
Lord's determination is arbitrary and personal to him or whether it reflects
some CHP
standard.
The uncontradicted evidence in this case demonstrates that
appellant's lights fall within the definition of "driving lights" in
Vehicle Code ? 24402. That section does not require driving lights to be
covered. The administrative regulations pertaining to driving lights do not
refer to any SAE requirements. While the authority to regulate driving lights is
vested in the CHP, there is no evidence that CHP has promulgated such a
regulation and if so, what that regulation is.
Vehicle Code ? 24402 was added to the Vehicle Code in 1959;
Vehicle Code ? 24411 was last amended in 1986. It is a principle of statutory
construction that it is assumed that the Legislature has existing laws in mind
when it enacts a statute. "The failure of the Legislature to change the law
in a particular respect when the subject is generally before it and changes in
other respects are made is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands
in the aspects not amended" [Estate of McDill (1975) 14 Cal.3d831, 838].
Further, when a statute is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, it must
construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the
circumstances of its application may reasonably permit" [Keller vs.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d619, 631]. The judgment of tbe trial court is reversed.
Dated: December 26, 1996
EDDIE T. KELLER
Judge of the Superior Court
TERRENCE m. FINNEY
Judge of the Superior Court
CHARLES E. GOFF
Superior Court Judge, Assigned The DOT's positionU.S. Department of Transportation
Dec 22, 1995
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Mr. Richard L. Russell
12475 Central Avenue
Suite 352
Chino, CA 91710
TERRENCE m. FINNEY
Judge of the Superior Court
CHARLES E. GOFF
Superior Court Judge, Assigned
The DOT's position:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Dec 22, 1995
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Mr. Richard L. Russell
12475 Central Avenue
Suite 352
Chino, CA 91710
Dear Mr. Russell:
This responds to your FAX of November 15, to Blane Lausis of
this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as
they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.
You wish to add two auxiliary lights to supplement your upper
beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT app
" The answer is no; the DOT
regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and associated
Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the
headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be
certified as meeting Standard No. 108.
As a matter of information, your use of the words "DOT
approved" reflect; a common misconception. We have no authority to
approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or
vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle)
meets the Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the
standard, and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used
method of certification.
This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps
on your 1956 Jeep are replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.
You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for
auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam.
There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by
the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the
manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and
location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming
driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.
Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective
date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, l969), we ask you to consider this safety
concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this
subject, and recommend you seek advice from the Department of California Highway
Patrol.
If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this
Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263).
Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel
AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE
(800) 424-9393 Wash.
D.C. Area 366-0123Please remember a little courtesy to
your fellow driver and you can help save us all from unwanted over-regulation!
(ed.) |
Posted Aug 13 2007 12:12PM
