There was a bill passed by the Senate (in 2010)but not the House that would require an amber light and the audible signal for private snow plows plowing parking lots and public streets. However it has not passed and still does not require a private snowplow to have the light. I had a guy at a car dealership tell me that he had a truck in Northern Michigan to plow his drive and was told by a local deputy that he had to have an amber light on his truck for when he gets near the public roadway. This might be a local ordinance in that county (or the township). Yes white warning light is allowed on emergency vehicles, even if it flashes to the rear. The confusion is that a white light to the rear of a motor vehicle is not allowed (equipment requirement of vehicles such as a red or amber light for brakes, tail lights, and turn signals), but the white warning light on the emergency vehicle is allowed.
Michigan Law about clear lights to rear of a vehicle. NEED HELP
- Thread starter smsales
- Start date
Oregon law prohibits any flashing white light to the rear of the vehicle "WHILE ITS IN MOTION", and if you follow the nfpa recommendations all white light is to be turned off when parked..
I received 4 separate tickets at one time from a state trooper that had a stick up his rectum........ I had 2 clear rotators and 2 clear strobe in my reverse lights .. he however wrote on my ticket that my truck was parked in the fast lane of the freeway, he was not the least bit impressed when i read the oregon law that stated "while in motion" and the ticket was dismissed.
the state patrol has been cracking down on the state highway department they started adding 1 clear and 1 red light to the rear, generaly a lin6 or a tir3, aparently they are changing them all out to 1 amber and 1 red ..
I received 4 separate tickets at one time from a state trooper that had a stick up his rectum........ I had 2 clear rotators and 2 clear strobe in my reverse lights .. he however wrote on my ticket that my truck was parked in the fast lane of the freeway, he was not the least bit impressed when i read the oregon law that stated "while in motion" and the ticket was dismissed.
the state patrol has been cracking down on the state highway department they started adding 1 clear and 1 red light to the rear, generaly a lin6 or a tir3, aparently they are changing them all out to 1 amber and 1 red ..
smsales said:
Not to be picky about the original wording in your post but nowhere did you say that the clear LED's were for the backup light use or were flashing for warning use...
Either way, boy did you spark a debate! Being a USDOT inspector, as long as your vehicle meets USDOT code, the addition of any vehicular warning lights to meet the individual's state's lighting requirements for that particular vehicle's specific use would fall solely on that vehicle's jurisdictional law enforcement agency(s) for legality of use (reference the post from the state trooper). What it all boils down to is just ordinary, everyday, good ol' fashioned common sense (which just isn't so common any more). Micigan state law allows its use in conjunction with the color(s) required. Use of it (in moderation) would be perfectly legal in your application. It is, as you state, going to be used by a municipality. They have governing bodies, as we all do. They have to comply with the same traffic laws as everyone else. Using your good judgement and common sense (let's hope you use it daily in all your duties and installs) the installation of which you speak shouldn't be an issue or scare the "white light to the rear" guys. Some states do, however, prohibit this. The only time its use or over-use would ever come into play would probably be in a civil matter involving a crash with this vehicle where the driver would make a claim as the the lights blinding him prior to that crash or being a causal factor in that crash. Then again, it wouldn't matter if the lights were legally used or not, the leeches (attorneys as they are commonly referred to) would attempt to cite any possible reason they could think of for their clients stupid maneuver. ANYONE who believes insurance companies don't rule the world, is a fool. Even municipalities (unless they're a Class A city being self-insured) have liability insurance. The insurance companies use NFPA, DOT, KKK, SAE and state and local laws as guideleines when referencing issues involving their client's claims. ALL of these fancy anacronyms can be used when trying to place liability and whom might be named in a lawsuit. Blame will be placed in the hands of 12 people sitting across the room from you when/if you unfortunately happen to be on the receviving end. Again, when was the last time an insurance company was fair about paying-out ANYTHING to ANYBODY???
smsales; Use your head. Use common sense. Use your good judgement and follow the traffic laws of your state when doing any of your installs and you won't be wrong. If a customer asks of you something you feel is in question, type-up a brief letter explaining the point you feel is questionable and have the individual or agency's representative sign it, and you're in the clear. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, CYA!!!
To quote a famous phrase; "that's all I have to say about that" (Forrest Gump)
This is getting even further from the original question but after reading the statute it looks like the use of anything other then a roof lightbar itself is technically against the law. So everybody's HAW's, grill lights and every other light on somebody POV shouldn't be there?
If this be so, per the wording of MCL 257.698(5), apparatus lighting would be limited to one overhead light. 257.603 and 257.632 stipulate at LEAST one overhead light visible in a 360 arc up to 500 feet under normal atmospheric conditions. The laws seem to contradict each other, and are vague, to say the least. None of the laws have wording that stipulates that a vehicle shall not have more than an overhead.
Flashing white light to rear (moving or not) is prohibited under NFPA and SAE. Neither of which are 'law' but are 'best practices' standards for emergency vehicles.
I guess I won't understand why, when TWO groups of industry experts who have studied the issue for hundreds or thousands of hours recommend the same thing, anyone in their right mind would ignore those recommendations.
White light to rear IS the most visible, but what many people forget is that the job of warning lights is not simply to be spotted, but also communicate to people what is going on. White communicates nothing, and it is not universally recognized as a warning colour. A light you can see from 2 miles away is NOT necessarily better than a light than you can see 1 mile away. If someone sees the light but can't figure out what it means, then the light is useless.
White light is, in the standards mentioned above, used primarily to indicate that an emergency vehicle is moving towards a motorist. If we can keep to that standard, then eventually (over many years) people will get 'trained' to recognize that flashing white lights mean an EV is coming up on me (behind me or towards me). If you start putting flashing white on a stationary vehicle, or to rear, it undermines that training.
Imagine if you were making vehicles (not necessarily EVs) and you thought that blue lights were a better choice than red for brake lights, even though the SAE standards all said red was the standard (assume for the moment that we have no laws covering this). Everyone else would be used to "red=stop". When they came across a pair of steady-burning blue lights, even if they could see the blue from 2x the distance of the red, they wouldn't know what it is, and would likely hit said vehicle. Its no different with white lights. This is why we have standards, folks - and its pretty arrogant (stupid, even) to assume that little 'ol you know better than TWO groups of industry experts who are trying to establish nation-wide (continent-wide, even) standards.
Amber would be a much better choice here.
I guess I won't understand why, when TWO groups of industry experts who have studied the issue for hundreds or thousands of hours recommend the same thing, anyone in their right mind would ignore those recommendations.
White light to rear IS the most visible, but what many people forget is that the job of warning lights is not simply to be spotted, but also communicate to people what is going on. White communicates nothing, and it is not universally recognized as a warning colour. A light you can see from 2 miles away is NOT necessarily better than a light than you can see 1 mile away. If someone sees the light but can't figure out what it means, then the light is useless.
White light is, in the standards mentioned above, used primarily to indicate that an emergency vehicle is moving towards a motorist. If we can keep to that standard, then eventually (over many years) people will get 'trained' to recognize that flashing white lights mean an EV is coming up on me (behind me or towards me). If you start putting flashing white on a stationary vehicle, or to rear, it undermines that training.
Imagine if you were making vehicles (not necessarily EVs) and you thought that blue lights were a better choice than red for brake lights, even though the SAE standards all said red was the standard (assume for the moment that we have no laws covering this). Everyone else would be used to "red=stop". When they came across a pair of steady-burning blue lights, even if they could see the blue from 2x the distance of the red, they wouldn't know what it is, and would likely hit said vehicle. Its no different with white lights. This is why we have standards, folks - and its pretty arrogant (stupid, even) to assume that little 'ol you know better than TWO groups of industry experts who are trying to establish nation-wide (continent-wide, even) standards.
Amber would be a much better choice here.
jprleedy4680 said:
Wow, I never looked at it like this. At LEAST ONE is written as that is the minimum amount required for an emergency vehicle to be called such.
But going back to (5) The use or possession of flashing, oscillating, or rotating lights of any color is prohibited except as otherwise provided by law, or under the following circumstances:
(a) A police vehicle shall be equipped with flashing, rotating, or oscillating red or blue lights, for use in the performance of police duties.
( B) A fire vehicle or ambulance available for public use or for use of the United States, the state, or any unit of the state, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be equipped with flashing, rotating, or oscillating red lights and used as required for safety.
© An authorized emergency vehicle as defined in section 2 may be equipped with flashing, rotating, or oscillating red lights for use when responding to an emergency call if when in use the flashing, rotating, or oscillating red lights are mounted on the roof section of the vehicle, either as a permanent installation or by means of suction cups or magnets and are clearly visible in a 360 degree arc from a distance of 500 feet when in use. A person operating lights under this subdivision at any time other than when responding to an emergency call is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Section A and B give carte blanche to LEO an official fire/ambulance vehicles for use of multiple lights with no roof section requirement, the general C section as it applies to section 2 (below) is what POV responders fall into right?
WTF?????????? Does this really say what I think it says?
Andy L. said:
Andy,
I swear I heard it went in for immediate passage back in December or January. There's stories of people being cited in Ann Arbor for that already and taking it to court. I also believe commercial vehicles have to have back up alarms anyways.
In short:
White to the rear- Is legal for authorized emergency vehicles. No white to the rear in use/malfunction of normal vehicles.
Snow plow amber lights- Are to be activated only when actively engaged in snow removal. (My company has been written up for this because the motor on our beacon was busted, so it didn't oscillate. Also 1 ticket for one of our salt trucks not deactivating his amber lights on the road).