• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Day time running light dead. Can I...?

Thanks. Now I have to bow to my wife. :(
 
MR662 said:
I’ve never had an issue and for years in court have seen people stopped whether for a fix it ticket or a stop that led to an arrest and PC was 24252 for a DRL our. The code is vague. But the way I was trained was any light installed by manufacturer is required to be in working order, therefore a DRL our is a violation.
Click to expand...

How is it vague? CVC 24252(a) specifically states "All lighting equipment of a required type installed on a vehicle". Did DRLs all of a sudden become required equipment per the vehicle code? If so, a whole lot of vehicles on the road are in violation. :laughing
 
Kornholio said:
How is it vague? CVC 24252(a) specifically states "All lighting equipment of a required type installed on a vehicle". Did DRLs all of a sudden become required equipment per the vehicle code? If so, a whole lot of vehicles on the road are in violation. :laughing
Click to expand...

Define required. Then by whom? California , The Manufacturer, the Fed?

The vehicle code doesn’t mention DRL’s though it does mention auxiliary lamps and separates that from fog lamps. A DRL could be an auxillary lamp, but not im not calling it that. Most of the codes are very outdated and some have not been updated for decades. Either way, I have my opinion and you’re free to have yours.
 
How about FMVSS 108? DRLs aren't required by the feds, nor the state of California. The only thing FMVSS 108 stipulates is that if a manufacturer does equip a vehicle with DRLs, they're required to meet the standards of 108. However, that still doesn't mean that they're required in any way.
I'm not sure how else the CVC applies in the case of "required" equipment and can't fathom how an adjudicator can sustain an argument that something is "required" when there's no standard that actually requires it at a state or federal level. :dunno

But you're right, it's just an opinion. :2cents
 
Seems like a low-odds-of-problem and small-consequences kind of issue. I'd drive the car. If you get pulled over, and you follow the advice of "only break one law at a time", the worst you get is a fix-it ticket which is fightable if you're feeling froggy.
 
To me the higher risk is getting rear ended since there are no tail lights on many cars with only the DRLs on (whether one is burned out or not).

I see people every morning during my commute with DRLs on only (thinking that the headlights are on) with no tail lights.

I think it is idiotic to not require tail lights to be on when only DRLs are on.

Dan
 
bergmen said:
To me the higher risk is getting rear ended since there are no tail lights on many cars with only the DRLs on (whether one is burned out or not).

I see people every morning during my commute with DRLs on only (thinking that the headlights are on) with no tail lights.

I think it is idiotic to not require tail lights to be on when only DRLs are on.

Dan
Click to expand...

Well, DLRs aren't headlights, so... Also makes it easier to find those impaired drivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top