vtminer

I can see your point of view but I was unable to find anywhere that says that it can't be illuminated in the same manner (dimmer for running lights and brighter for braking) as the other tail lights. The flashing is addressed elsewhere in the code and would be in violation of it. You also have to consider the text and how it's written and used throughout the document. The phrase, verbatim, is shown as "Steady Burning." Period and all, no change across multiple categories, including both CHMSL and clearance light sections. I think, from a legal perspective, both arguments could be right and won in court as long as the CHMSL is operational and conforms to either of these definitions.

ronjenx

This, from your own post, means it cannot be on all the time with the regular tail lights: "Must only be activated upon application of the service brakes or may be activated by a device designed to retard the motion of the vehicle."

What's the part you left out before the words "...steady burning"?
A google search for 49 CFR Part 6.1.4.1 did not yield anything related to automotive lights.

resharp001

I personally think it serves it's entire purpose better if it's only lit up when the brake is activated. I can't recall if you guys have a state inspection in Colorado or not. If you do, and if they take it seriously, I'd probably ask one of the technicians that does actual inspections to see if they'd pass it like that. I've lived in places where an inspection was just a formality of paying and having a sticker slapped on, and others were it was taken very seriously. For example, the only way I can get my jeep past inspections right now is to roll in topless/doorless cuz the first thing they do is roll my windows up (if there) and realize I have 20% tint on em. If you can get it past an inspection lit how you want, I don't think it's a big deal.....i just think it's better the other way.

vtminer

Rojenx - I apologize for my erroneous citation. It's actually 49 CFR Part 571.108.S6.1.4.1. When I did the citation, I misread it and didn't see the 571 part. The link below is to the full text of Part 571 if you want to look at it. Nonetheless, I've attached screen shots of the pertinent regulations.

As for where I got "...steady burning" from, it was directly from Table 1 (see screen shot). The "..." was the grammar nazi in me and wasn't intended to mislead. I realize the phrases are contradictory but then again when did government legal speak actually not sound retarded and make sense? I just trying to make the point that given the way the regulations are written, either option appears to satisfy the standard.

Resharp001 - Colorado only has emissions inspections for certain vehicles (only vehicles produced between 1976 and 2010 currently) and even then it's only in certain counties (your major metro areas). Vehicle modification laws are pretty lax here. For example, zero fender coverage is required. That's right. None. Comparatively, I moved from WV where we were only allow 3" of tire outside the fender.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.108

resharp001

My dad lives up there..... They sure do get you back by charging you enormous vehicle registration fees!

ronjenx

vtminer,Thanks for the link. I read the parts regarding CHMSLs and tail lights. The "steady burning" phrase indicates the lights will be on steadily when activated. It even uses the phrase regarding the regular stop lights.
As we all know, stop lights are not on all the time. But when they are activated, they must burn steadily.

vtminer

Compared to TX and FL, yeah. I loved it when I lived in FL. $40 and that was it for tag fees every year. CO is honestly middle of the road. I think I paid around $500 this year for both mine and my wife's vehicles (Jeep and Honda Odyssey) and that included late fees for both as I was laid off when my normal registration was due. In comparison, it's still better than WV. The last tag fee I paid there was in 2012 for 2011 vehicles (yeah, it's always a year behind). I had an F-150 Lariat and I think I paid $750 just for that one truck. I basically budgeted 13 car payments a year per vehicle. 12 for the bank and one for tag fees.

vtminer

Very true. But they also use "Steady Burning" in the context of clearance and marker lights. As we all know, these lights turn on with the headlights (or automatically turn on with the ignition depending on the model) and stay on. They aren't even wired into circuits that can flash, pulse or anything else. Regardless, I think we can agree that the Federal Code is just horribly written and likely doesn't clearly convey the intent.

ronjenx

Yes, those lights are also required to be "Steady Burning"...when activated.

The key words in all this are "when activated".

It's clear the CHMSL and brake lights can be activated only by the application of the brakes.

Anyway, I don't think the fed regs apply to the vehicle owner. They mandate how the manufacturer must equip the vehicle.

However, if someone rear-ends you, and it is discovered you removed or altered a light meant to make your brake application more apparent, you may be found to have some degree of fault.