eLightbars Home

the Internet's largest lightbar, siren, and emergency equipment forum

Make a contribution


Notice: Thanks for your patience as we work to restore full service. In the mean time, please try out our new chat room.

Strobes in Taillights Revisited


 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eLightbars.org Forum -> Lightbars, LED lights, strobes, and beacons
Author Message
mcsar1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Montgomery Alabama

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 10:30    Post subject: Strobes in Taillights Revisited Reply with quote

I received several heated responses to my opposition to using hideaway strobes in taillights. My contention was and is that they are not only dangerous when used while a vehicle is in motion, they are also illegal. Alabama, as well as most other states, base their DOT and MV laws on federal standards and I have posted Ala Title 32 regarding this subject:

Section 32-5-241
(2) A stop lamp shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 100 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime and a signal lamp or lamps indicating intention to turn shall be visible and understandable during daytime and nighttime from a distance of 100 feet both to the front and rear. When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No stop lamp or signal lamp shall project a glaring or dazzling light.

Section 32-5-252
Approval of lighting devices; prohibited lamps and devices; regulations; lists of approved devices to be published.
(a) No person shall have for sale, or offer for sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any head lamp, auxiliary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp or reflector, which reflector is required hereunder, or parts of any of the foregoing which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the director and approved by him.

Section 32-5A-58
Following emergency vehicle prohibited.
The driver of any vehicle other than one on official business shall not follow any authorized emergency vehicle traveling in response to an emergency call closer than 500 feet or stop such vehicle within 500 feet of any authorized emergency vehicle stopped in answer to an emergency call.

As with ALL laws, they are subject to individual interpretation and implimentation. MP
Back to top    URL
RFJammed
Regular
Regular


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Springfield, Illinois

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 12:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder what the legal definition of \"dazzling\" is. :>
Back to top    URL
RFJammed
Regular
Regular


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Springfield, Illinois

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 12:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

What the heck is the voice crap in the background?
Back to top    URL
mcsar1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Montgomery Alabama

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 12:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

VOICE CRAP?
Back to top    URL
duncanville1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 94
Location: Arlington Tx.

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 13:30    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

[quote:2f7888664b=\"RFJammed\"]What the heck is the voice crap in the background?



he is off his meds again in think,lol!!! Rolling Eyes
Back to top    URL
RFJammed
Regular
Regular


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Springfield, Illinois

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 13:31    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's the video, then there's the music.. and then there's the voice. Maybe it goes with the music. I dunno, it sounds totally out of place.
Back to top    URL
mcsar1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Montgomery Alabama

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 13:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

definately off my meds!
Back to top    URL
Pat H.
Administrator


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 9545
Location: Phillips County, Montana

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 13:35    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

[quote:96b948dd4f=\"RFJammed\"]There's the video, then there's the music.. and then there's the voice. Maybe it goes with the music. I dunno, it sounds totally out of place.


Uh, what video are you talking about? There is no video link in this thread topic.
Back to top    URL
jeeper2269
Regular
Regular


Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Posts: 277
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Tue 22-Nov-2005 13:36    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here in Oregon, most law enforcement agencies use hide-a-way strobes in the reverse (clear) or brake light housings of their patrol cars. I understand the concern with the placing them in the reverse light housing, but the brake light housing doesn't seem to be a problem for agencies around here. Just my $.02
Back to top    URL
Stan Andriski
Regular
Regular


Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 240
Location: Barre MA

PostPosted: Wed 23-Nov-2005 17:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another good reason why all vehicals built after 1990 have a third brake light.

And the 500ft rule also should cancel out the light one. I know my defence for someone who rear ended me with my lights on would be that they were within the 500 feet of my vehical. But thats irrelevant.

But I do see where they are coming from. Its like responding with your hazards on. People don't know where you are going. I always try and use my directionals when I respond although that is probably the last thing the average joe driver would see. And I guess if it is illeagel then about 90% of all police crusiers in the country should be marked OOS!

Ok I am done with my random thoughts,
Stan
Back to top    URL
mcsar1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Montgomery Alabama

PostPosted: Wed 23-Nov-2005 17:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as I previously stated \"As with ALL laws, they are subject to individual interpretation and implimentation\". Just because 90% of the departments use strobes in their taillights, this doesnt mean it's legal or smart. In fact, My own department permits individual Deputies to do this to their cruisers. However, part of my job is to keep the department out of litigation and this topic has been widely discussed. As a result, most of the Deputies have removed them from the vehicles, or at least moved them to the backup lights. Most of our cars now are using strobes or leds in the rear window in addition to the Whelen strobe bars on the roof.

I would also like to point out that I have received reports from some volunteer firefighters and rescue squad members that they were given verbal or written warnings about this from Alabama State Troopers. I am not aware of any citations.
Back to top    URL
Jordan C.
#200,000


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 1241
Location: Starke, Florida

PostPosted: Wed 23-Nov-2005 21:27    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

[quote:c31cc3db3e=\"mcsar1\"]Just as I previously stated \"As with ALL laws, they are subject to individual interpretation and implimentation\". Just because 90% of the departments use strobes in their taillights, this doesnt mean it's legal or smart. In fact, My own department permits individual Deputies to do this to their cruisers. However, part of my job is to keep the department out of litigation and this topic has been widely discussed. As a result, most of the Deputies have removed them from the vehicles, or at least moved them to the backup lights. Most of our cars now are using strobes or leds in the rear window in addition to the Whelen strobe bars on the roof.

I would also like to point out that I have received reports from some volunteer firefighters and rescue squad members that they were given verbal or written warnings about this from Alabama State Troopers. I am not aware of any citations.


I couldn't see anyone that is a public safety offical having legal action brought against them for strobes in the taillights. You aren't altering them. I think it is a lot safe putting them in the taillights for 2 reasons:

1. People are blinded at night by blazing white strobes that they are approaching.
2. Red is easier recognization for the rear of the vehicle. (ie: The car approaching can tell that it's the rear of a vehicle)

That's just my view on this thing.
Back to top    URL
Dana
Regular
Regular


Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 350
Location: Chesterfield, VA

PostPosted: Thu 24-Nov-2005 05:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your opposition is irrelevent in Virginia.

\"Code of Virginia � 46.2-1029.2. Certain vehicles may be equipped with secondary warning lights.

In addition to other lights authorized by this article any (i) fire apparatus, (ii) government-owned vehicle operated on official business by a local fire chief or other local fire official, and (iii) rescue squad vehicle, ambulance, or any other emergency medical vehicle may be equipped with alternating, blinking, or flashing red or red and white secondary warning lights mounted inside the vehicle's taillights or marker lights of a type approved by the Superintendent of State Police.\"
Back to top    URL
mcsar1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Montgomery Alabama

PostPosted: Thu 24-Nov-2005 09:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hooray for Virginia. At least your state spells it out in black and white so there is no question. That's the way laws are supposed to be written.

As for my opposition, it is based on the safety aspect and current ALABAMA law, which I am sworn to uphold. MP
Back to top    URL
ResQguy
Regular
Regular


Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 660
Location: Maryland/DC

PostPosted: Fri 25-Nov-2005 21:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading this topic, is it then illegal for Ford to advertise and sell the Visibility Package in Alabama?
Back to top    URL
mcsar1
Regular
Regular


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Montgomery Alabama

PostPosted: Fri 25-Nov-2005 22:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes and no. If you uphold the Alabama law as written, then it is illegal. However, the Director of the Department of Public Safety has the ability to approve and authorize the use of non-standard vehicular equipment (reference \"unless of a type which has been submitted to the director and approved by him\"). Since the Alabama DPS, ABI and numerous other agencies purchase Crown Vics with the Visibility Package, I assume that the Director has in fact approved it for use.
Back to top    URL
Phillyrube
Contributing Member


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 868
Location: Rescue, VA

PostPosted: Sat 26-Nov-2005 18:10    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

[quote:37f93efba9=\"duncanville1\"][quote:37f93efba9=\"RFJammed\"]What the heck is the voice crap in the background?



he is off his meds again in think,lol!!! Rolling Eyes

I know that voice, it's the same one that sometimes tells me to go to work and clean my guns!!!
Back to top    URL
Will
Regular
Regular


Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 299
Location: Camdan CO,Missouri

PostPosted: Sat 26-Nov-2005 19:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you maybe reading to much this when you try and apply it to HAW strobes. The codes you quote seem to appply more to the function of the lamp then the housing and other lamps that might be housed with in it. A strobe tube mounted inside the rear lamp housing is not or should not be acting as a stop lamp or a signal lamp. IMO, if done right adding a HAW does not \"change the original design or performance\" of the lamp in question. In other words the stop/signal lamp still does the same thing in the same way.

If I were you I would check with the state DOT or DMV or who ever be in charge of this type of thing.
Back to top    URL
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eLightbars.org Forum -> Lightbars, LED lights, strobes, and beacons All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 

By accessing any part of this site, you acknowledge/accept the terms and conditions laid out in our site guidelines.

© Blake Barr, all rights reserved.