Quick Vehicle Code question... respond asap

[kawasakiklx]

I need a definitive answer for California only, thanks ahead of time for your input. Here goes:

Some vehicle are equiped with a third brake light. In this case the break light is installed on the rear spoiler of a late 80's Trans Am. The light is centered on the spolier and should act as a brake light when of course the brakes are engaged.

My question is, are there any vehicle codes that correspond to this light working or not working? I know there is 24252a VC and the 24603 VC section but I just need to see what you guys think about this. As I read it, it does say a vehicle "may" have that light but does that mean it doesnt have to work? - Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[hitnrun]

Technically, if the third brake light isn't working, then you are in violation of 24252(a) CVC.

You would still be in violation even though it isn't necessary to have the third brake light.

[kawasakiklx]

that's what I cited him for but after reading the section it says, "...properly maintaint REQUIRED lighting..."

Then under the section allowing the center brake light it says "may be equpped" in my mind that would mean it is optional and not required...as stated above...

I hope I used the right section, this would be the first time I have to write that wonderful letter to the judge saying I screwed up.

[hitnrun]

that's what I cited him for but after reading the section it says, "...properly maintaint REQUIRED lighting..."

Then under the section allowing the center brake light it says "may be equppied" in my mind meaning it is optional and not required...as stated above...

I hope I used the right section, this would be the first time I have to write that wonderful letter to the judge saying I screwed up.

I haven't had an issue with citing for 24252 cvc yet. I use it for things like the third brake light, fog lamps, etc. Our DA has told us that it is to be used for things like that, so maybe that's why! Ask one of your traffic guys or a chippie. The chippies around here haven't had an issue with it either. I don't write many cites, but, I use it for PC all of the time. If I were to cite for a lighting equip. violation, I would try to use the appropriate section, and use 24252 for the rareities.

[hitnrun]

Who knows, maybe we do it azz backwards?

You work in Fort Bragg?

[hitnrun]

I forgot to add...

This section would not include aftermarket installation of lighting equip. Like offroad lamps, spotlights, etc.

It only applies to factory equipment...again, that is how we do it around here. YMMV.

[kawasakiklx]

Thanks, that makes me feel a little better. Most of the time I only use that section for broken lenses and stuff like that if of course I dont cite for something like "white light to the rear" in that same situation.

Do you know about Ft. Bragg? not too many people do.... Where in norcal do you work and to answer your question, yes I do and in fact I am right now.

That kid i wrote the cite to will complain (due to previous contacts) so i wanted to do a little cya, since I cited him for not having his license in his possession (which I never have) :D I don't want it to look like I was completely out to get him.

I got him for 16028a and that carries a hefty fine too, people just don't realize.

[mcsap]

I know you asked about CA but I suspect that most states are the same on this.

I would translate the " may be equipped " is intended to mean for those who have an older car that didn't originally come with the 3rd light. If it came from the factory , it is a required light.

I had a 91 Chevy van with a 3rd light. It burned out and my insp. mechanic said 91 was the last year that they didn't come with the light , someone must have added it. It looked original though. I had a new bulb put in anyway even though I didn't have to.

[kawasakiklx]

anyone else?

[JD45]

You're fine with 24252(a)

It's a correctable violation, so is this guy really going to contest it???