slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
This provides the chief of wsp power to adopt regulations however I would expect these adopted regulation to be publicly published for citing.
This section does not explicitly make HIDs illegal.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
WSP encounter
- Thread starter hermannr
- Start date
This provides the chief of wsp power to adopt regulations however I would expect these adopted regulation to be publicly published for citing.
This section does not explicitly make HIDs illegal.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
That's your rebuttal? LOMAO, even when faced with the RCW some will still be in denial.
slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
I am simply asking for folks to cite the regulation or law that makes after market HIDs illegal. No one has provided that cite, not even you. Your cite simply says the chief can adopt regulations. If a real cite of regulation or law can't be provided its not illegal.
I am not in denial, just want proof that after market HIDs actually are illegal. If that can be provided then so be it, I have not found it.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Dude we can keep going in circles like this all week. You're not changing my opinion and I'm not changing yours. Heck I'm not eventrying to change your opinion, just get you to respect my rights. What is blinding, in this context, is obviously highly subjective and therefore IS a matter of opinion! Is there an empirical test or definable standard for what is "blinding?" Didn't think so.
You are free to do what you want with your own rigs. You can not put HID's on them all you want. Hey you can not put HID's on them till the cows come home, knock yourself out. You can even spend hundreds putting aftermarket projectors on them if you want (if they make them for your ride, of course... not all do...).
But what *I* do with *my* property is *my* business. The law (if it even exists) is wrong, and needs to be changed (along with about a brazilian others). It's an arbitrary and unenforceable standard based on 30 year old technology. My HID's do not harm anyone, they do not endanger anyone, and if they annoy someone then so be it. They've saved *my* life on more than one occasion, and annoying is how you stay alive on a motorcycle.
Now if this is all based on a federal standard as the other posts seem to indicate, that's opening up a whole 'nuther can I worms.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Just went thru the RCW's. "Headlights" got two entries that had nothing to do with the matter and hand. "Head lamps" comes up with 17 entries. Here's all I could find even remotely related to the subject, nothing of which prohibits aftermarket HID's:
RCW 46.37.280
Special restrictions on lamps.(1) During the times specified in RCW 46.37.020, any lighted lamp or illuminating device upon a motor vehicle, other than head lamps, spot lamps, auxiliary lamps, flashing turn signals, emergency vehicle warning lamps, warning lamps authorized by the state patrol and school bus warning lamps, which projects a beam of light of an intensity greater than three hundred candlepower shall be so directed that no part of the high intensity portion of the beam will strike the level of the roadway on which the vehicle stands at a distance of more than seventy-five feet from the vehicle.
| [h=2]RCW 46.37.220[/h][h=1]Multiple-beam road-lighting equipment.[/h] |
(2) There shall be a lowermost distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of one hundred fifty feet ahead; and on a straight level road under any conditions of loading none of the high intensity portion of the beam shall be directed to strike the eyes of an approaching driver;
RCW 46.37.310
Selling or using lamps or equipment.(1) No person may have for sale, sell, or offer for sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any head lamp, auxiliary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp, or reflector, which reflector is required under this chapter, or parts of any of the foregoing which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the state patrol and conforming to rules adopted by it.
Green hilights are mine. Lots of restrictions about number & placement of lights, NOTHING about power source, wattage, etc. They must only be properly aimed as I said elsewhere. Although if Techno bought his projectors locally it would appear that THAT actually IS illegal according to .310, since I doubt if they were signed off by the WSP. Got my HID's on ebay so no law was broken there
SO it would appear this actually IS a federal issue, and that's a whole new can o worms! Now I've read thru the US Constitution recently. And NO WHERE IN THAT FRIGGIN THING does it give the federal government the power to dictate what headlights I can put on my own damn property!
I'm not entirely opposed to federal manufacturing safety standards. That at least may be a legitimate regulatory power under the ICC since very few motor vehicles are manufactured in-state for in-state exclusive use.
But once I get the durn thing home and the title arrives it's mine to do with as I please as long as I do not directly harm or endanger anyone else!
Sorry, it's late & I'm ornery. HID's stopped yet another stupid deer from jumping out in front of me on my way home
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
RCW 46.37.005
State patrol — Additional powers and duties.
In addition to those powers and duties elsewhere granted, the chief of the Washington state patrol shall have the power and the duty to adopt, apply, and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations
(1) relating to proper types of vehicles or combinations thereof for hauling passengers, commodities, freight, and supplies,
(2) relating to vehicle equipment, and
(3) relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this title with regard to vehicle equipment, as may be deemed necessary for the public welfare and safety in addition to but not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
The chief of the Washington state patrol is authorized to adopt by regulation, federal standards relating to motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any amendment to said act, notwithstanding any provision in Title 46 RCW inconsistent with such standards. Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards.
State patrol — Additional powers and duties.
In addition to those powers and duties elsewhere granted, the chief of the Washington state patrol shall have the power and the duty to adopt, apply, and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations
(1) relating to proper types of vehicles or combinations thereof for hauling passengers, commodities, freight, and supplies,
(2) relating to vehicle equipment, and
(3) relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this title with regard to vehicle equipment, as may be deemed necessary for the public welfare and safety in addition to but not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
The chief of the Washington state patrol is authorized to adopt by regulation, federal standards relating to motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any amendment to said act, notwithstanding any provision in Title 46 RCW inconsistent with such standards. Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards.
This is a large amount of power given to the Chief of the State Patrol but it does give he/she the power to adopt, apply and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations and it spells it out above, nothing about having to post for a certain amount of time.
It later authorizes the Chief to adopt by regulation federal standards relating to motor vehicles
This discussion clearly boils down to attitudes of wanting to pick and choose what laws they will adhere to not. Attaching the concept of being law abiding citizens and standing up for the RKBA there is a negative stigma attached of only obey laws of their choosing.
Granted if you do not feel the law is a good one or is wrong then work to having it appealed or rewritten.
Last edited:
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=204-10-021
Short version. Not FMVSS compliant = not legal in WA.
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
Don't make me slap you monkay
It IS fact that aftermarket HID kits produce tons of glare, are NOT FMVSS compliant, and as such, are not in compliance with WA state law.
There is no 'opinion' about it.
I've cited state and federal law, as well as the states opinion on it.
What else do you want? Will a ticket suffice to 'prove it' to you?
:banghead:
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
HID's surely change the original design AND performance of a standard halogen lamp assembly.
BTW, that's quite close to what FMVSS states.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
... and so do your projectors... which you have conveniently ignored mentioning further
. And that RCW prohibits sale, not use.It's yet another unconstitutional federal regulation.
Last edited:
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
... and so do your projectors... which you have conveniently ignored mentioning further
It's yet another unconstitutional federal regulation.
Re-read that RCW...
It says no one may sell OR USE...
Projectors are murky water, as they are designed as a complete replacement, designed for use WITH an HID bulb ,otherwise meet all criteria, Ie not blinding, , etc.
FMVSS states that 'you can't use a bulb in an enclosure that it wasn't originally designed to use', so HID retrofits violate it. Completely replacing the halogen enclosure with a projector setup that mimics the factory setup, but is designed to use HID, may be legal.
Most people are concerned about glare. Will you get pulled over for your technically illegal lights if there is no glare? Probably not.
If you're (not you, just generally) a ricer a-hole intent on running bluish purple 50W HID kits putting out 5,000 lumens, I hope you get nailed to the wall with your $300 ticket.
(avg headlight is ~700-1,000 lumens)
If there's no excess glare, then there's no issue(personally). But only a handful of cars actually have usable housings for HID, and anything above 4300k actually results in less visibility, not more.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
No, it doesn't. Re-read it yourself. It says no one may SELL. it MENTIONS use, but no where restricts it. There is an exemption in part three when "properly adjusted." and just where are you pulling this $300 figure from?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
I try not to get upset.
But WTF are you reading? It clearly says you may not sell OR use.
I pulled the $300 out of my ass.
HID's usually net multiple citations. Equip. violations, failure to dim/causing glare, and most likely other related offenses like clear tails with colored bulbs, illegal plate covers, etc
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Read section three. Exempts when properly aimed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
You're misinterpreting that.
It says 'you can't have lights that are not approved by the state' then it says 'any equipment we do approve has to have identification that shows it's approved', followed by 'the lights that we do approve, still must be mounted and aimed properly, otherwise they're still illegal'
Why do people insist on reading laws the way they want them to be read instead of what they actually mean?
RCW 46.37.310
Selling or using lamps or equipment.
(1) No person may have for sale, sell, or offer for sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any head lamp, auxiliary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp, or reflector, which reflector is required under this chapter, or parts of any of the foregoing which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the state patrol and conforming to rules adopted by it.
(2) No person may have for sale, sell, or offer for sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer any lamp or device mentioned in this section conforming to rules adopted by the state patrol unless such lamp or device bears thereon the trademark or name under which it is approved so as to be legible when installed.
(3) No person may use upon any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer any lamps mentioned in this section unless the lamps are mounted, adjusted, and aimed in accordance with instructions of the state patrol.
amlevin
Regular Member
Not to mention the references in the citing officer's report, that the Judge gets to read when the ticket is disputed, showing what a big a-hole the driver was when he first tried to explain that the lights were illegal. A suggestion that might, if the person hadn't turned into such an "in your face butt-wipe", have merely have resulted in a warning.
One of those encounters where both parties walk away shaking their heads muttering "@$$hole" yet only one has a huge ticket in his pocket.
Last edited:
amlevin
Regular Member
If properly aimed one probably won't get stopped. If stopped, that's a good indication that they weren't.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Which I've been saying for several posts now.
Seems like I'm reading as written to me:
(3) No person may use upon any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer any lamps mentioned in this section (section .310) unless the lamps are mounted, adjusted, and aimed in accordance with instructions of the state patrol.
Could it be that so manylaws are needlessly complex and therefore ambiguous since they shouldn't exist in the first place? Hmmm...
You certainly seem to have a thing against ricers. Not overly fond of them myself, but if they want to festoon their rides with HID's altezza taillights, cut springs, fart cans, & penguin wings that's their business as long as they're not harming anyone. Being annoying is not doing harm.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Careful there... apply that same thinking to any of the recent LEO OC encounters. "Well if he'd only shown ID and agreed to cover up he wouldn't be in that mess."
badkarma
Regular Member
Are you seriously still talking about head lights on rice burners?