If you are military, your part of the USSRA act so you can keep your washington plates(if thats ur home of record or if u just "act" like it is) so you dont have to deal with california BS... because it really is BS, its only fun to visit california....

 

CA requires that any car factory-equipped with side view mirrors must continue to have side view mirrors.

Since JK mirrors are mounted on the doors, if you take the doors off, then you'll need a mirror relocation kit to stay street-legal (not sure about whether the mirrors are required off-road).

 

Yes, I am aware of the thread, however it does not answer the question of whether lights on the bumper are considered off-road lights. In fact, I found the answer elsewhere. California vs Richard Russell in El Dorado County has actually done a ruling on the subject on a case that a guy appealed.

Based on that ruling, SGT is INCORRECT and somewhereinla is CORRECT in that, assuming the lights are wired to the high beams and they will be disabled if the high beams are on, and that they are BELOW 42" in height, they are not considered off-highway lights but can be classified as driving lights. I am sure this is why all of the non-4x4 cars with driving lights are legal (mini cooper, for example, comes with driving lights as a factory option that is legal in CA without covers).

If anyone thinks this interpretation is wrong and the lights below 42" that are not on with high beams are illegal if uncovered, I'd love to see how.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RULING



EL DORADO CO. SUPERIOR CT.
FILED 12-30-96
No . PV-001706
APPELLATE DECISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
vs.
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, requirements 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.3d 831, 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.3d 619, 631].

The judgment of the 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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Let me check.. interesting case law.... but it is old....

also note, most people do not wire aftermarket lights, off road lights, to be disabled when the high beams are turned on..... Most people just wire them straight to the switch and still operate when the high beams are on, unlike the driving lights and fogs from the factory on a mini or any other vehicle that has fogs / driving / and off road lights from the facotry which make them legal then. Factory always wires them to be turned off when high beams are activated. An exception in that, not like the after markets which would make them illigal if not covered if they work with high beams. Thus somewhereinla is right if wired correctly.

 

Keep in mind, that if you do decide to replace any headlight or tail light, it must be D.O.T. approved.

Something else to keep in mind, if you your tires extend beyond your fender, it must have a mud flap to prevent spray to the rear of vehicle.

3rd brake light - If it's standard equipment from the factory, its illegal to remove it. If you replace/fab a replacement, make sure it has the D.O.T. on the lense.

Now, a lot of people are getting away breaking these laws, including no front plate. However, if you happened to get pulled over at 3 AM, because an officer wants to collect enough DUI tickets to make it to motorcycle cop - and can't write you up for a DUI - he might and will write you up for every little thing. At least in my city.