cbpdogboy
Member
2012 Charger- Albuquerque Police
- Thread starter cbpdogboy
- Start date
cbpdogboy
Member
They should have spent some money on a deck light or grill lights instead of on all the LAW's in the taillights (IMO) but still looks really good
Carlos SpicyWeiner
Lifetime VIP Donor
it is a mean looking car. I agree about some deck and grill lights. This is one of the few chargers I've seen where people didnt go overboard on the taillight section and make it look like a big mess. I love the taillight set up in this one.
Sigma Safety
Member
Reviving an old thread. Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere...
Too bad about the rear lighting pattern choice. Oh, and flashing the CHMSL is a major no-no!
Too bad about the rear lighting pattern choice. Oh, and flashing the CHMSL is a major no-no!
RyanZ71
Member
Sigma Safety
Member
RyanZ71 said:
I assume you're talking about the 3rd brake light..
Flashing the 3rd brake light violates MVSS in both the US and Canada. In the US it's section 108. It can only be illuminated when the "service" brake is applied. Illuminating it with a flasher or any other device is a major no-no.
See http://sos-production.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ETFBSSN-P%20Fold%20A.pdf . Note the warning below the wiring diagram.
iceman4122
Member
Its hard enough to see out the rear windowz of these cars. Add in a bulky deck light and it makes it damn near dangerous. My belief is if its not a highway car then minimal rear lighting is needed. Remember there still is a full size LED bar up top that's giving off plenty of light.
Rofocowboy84
Member
RyanZ71
Member
leftcoastmark said:
According to them it is. As I said, if it doesn't cause a problem with that vehicle, I see no issue. Just because someone "suggests" something doesn't mean you have to do it. I understand their reasoning behind it with some vehicles disabling the shift thingie in the transmission but not all vehicles have that issue. It they don't, what's wrong with using it. We got by just fine in the 80s and 90s with brake light flashers including the 3rd brake light, we'll continue to get by just fine now.
Not trying to start a pissing match here, I just get tired of how people think that because something is suggested that it has to be law when it in fact is not. Besides, we have enough stupid laws as it is.
Sigma Safety
Member
RyanZ71 said:
It has nothing to do with a "suggestion" or the park safety interlock. Illuminating the 3rd brake light any time, except for when the driver steps on the brake, is illegal. It's not a suggestion or a standard, it's federal law. I've checked it with Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards here, and they told me they mirror the US laws. It's mandatory for all vehicles in north america, just like having functioning turn signals is law and not just a "suggestion".
Have a look; NHTSA VEHICLE ADVISORY for Law Enforcement Agencies
Last edited by a moderator:
RyanZ71
Member
leftcoastmark said:
I see nothing illegal about it. But that is ok! Stupid laws will get ignored but as for you folks who do installs, I commend you for upholding even the stupid laws.
Last edited by a moderator:
RyanZ71 said:
How is it a stupid law? Brake lights are feature that has a direct impact on other road uses. If another motorist sees the CHMSL flashing they would understandably assume the vehicle is stopping/slowing and take action, or they may realize it's an emergency light and not notice when it suddenly goes solid, either way they can have an accident and you can bet your pension the moment they mention flashing CHMSL you are going to carry the can.
Personally I don't like flashing brake lights at all, they serve no purpose other then to confuse other motorists, is the car stopping? Is it turning? Is it trying to warn me of something?
RyanZ71
Member
You have some points you brought up there. But I really don't think a flashing center mounted stop light is going to confuse anyone. They just see it as another emergency light among several others on the vehicle. The purpose of that flashing light is to get attention, to get people to slow down and move over and not go plowing into the back of that car. That being said, I'll put this one to rest for now. Good points on your behalf though.