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 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 366-0123
Please remember a little courtesy to your
fellow driver and you can help save us all from unwanted over-regulation!
(ed.)