My accessory got me a ticket today

[Patriot]

I guess I would have gone to jail; hope my AAA bond as part of my membership would help me :dribble:

 

[Happy Rider]

I don't know how to link this thread. :dribble:

Anway, DaJudge posted this and I installed the same system and it works great. I wonder if buf2phx could install the 3rdbrakeflasher and fix the problem to keep LEO's happy with his light.

I've never been rear-ended while on a motorcycle stopped at a light or in the process of doing so. But, I know a few riders who have been injured this way and I've been hit when stopped at a light in my car. I could go into a rant about idiots texting, reading, etc., but I'll spare ya.
On my Tiger, I added one of those KnightRiderz LED flasher strips just below the license plate. It's an improvement, but not all that noticable on a sunny day. I wanted something more for the FJR. I found it.

If you want to get the attention of the drivers coming up behind you as you slow or stop, try this:

1) Get a single Whelen LIN3 lighthead (red). These are normally used in sets on emergency vehicles. Each one is stinkin' bright (3xGen3 LEDs) and draws very little current. They can be had on-line for about $50.

2) Buy a "3rdBrakeFlasher" unit for $20. This is a tiny, sealed 36-mode programable in-line flasher unit.

I set the Whelen (which has several strobe modes) to solid and programmed the flasher to do 5 flashes and then go solid (you need to set it for 4 flashes if you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia).

I haven't done a video of it, but here's one from a guy who did the same setup on his bike. His flash mode is set a little too fast (you can set it slower), but it shows the effectiveness of this little light.

 

[ShinyPartsUp]

Well, I got a response from the company after quoting the CA statutes as above and telling of the OP's original ticket. Their response:

"Hi Michael, the way I would read that law it would seem that it would be illegal, however, we have been selling these lights for several years and with tens of thousands of them on the road I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket for one, I would hope the police would use some common sense in that you are putting on a light to help you been seen and safe and not to look like an emergency vehicle. Thanks Dave

EVERYTHING To Light Up Your Ride!®

Custom Dynamics®

12335-203 Wake Union Church Rd

Wake Forest, NC 27587

https://www.customdynamics.com

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 800-382-1388

Phone: 919-554-0949

Fax: 919-882-9611"

Anybody know if this would be considered a moving violation? My guess it would not, and thus not count towards insurance points.

To the OP: This stinks, as it sounds like you really have been singled out where the law hasn't caught up with common sense.

 

[buf2phx]

It is not a moving violation. From what the officer told me,I can remove the light and the fine will be reduced or eliminated. Or I can just pay it,leave the light as-is, and wait for my next ticket. :glare: 08FJR,do you know if it is possible to reconfigure the light I have to operate like a 3rd brake light on a cage?? That is, no flashing, just illuminating when the brake is applied.

Mike

 

[jack]

I have the Whelen taillights on both of my bikes and have never had a problem getting stopped. As a retired LEO, the guy that stopped and ticketed you was just being a prick and asserting his authority. Phoenix is probably comparable to Kansas City in terms of serious part 1 crime and emergency calls for service. Given that, I find it incredible that he would engage in this kind of time/resource wasting activity that serves only to polarize the public attitude towards law enforcement.

 

[buf2phx]

I have the Whelen taillights on both of my bikes and have never had a problem getting stopped. As a retired LEO, the guy that stopped and ticketed you was just being a prick and asserting his authority. Phoenix is probably comparable to Kansas City in terms of serious part 1 crime and emergency calls for service. Given that, I find it incredible that he would engage in this kind of time/resource wasting activity that serves only to polarize the public attitude towards law enforcement.

The fact that he felt the need to cite me, as oposed to just telling me to remove the light, is what really ticks me off. I agree that it seems like a big waste of his time to engage in a traffic stop for something so trivial. Not to mention the risks involved in a traffic stop. A Gilbert,AZ lieutenant was shot and killed about a month ago during a "routine" traffic stop. Very sad.

Mike

 

[Rogue]

A tax collector at work.

 

[SacramentoMike]

I don't know if it's fact or some kind of urban/motorcycle myth, but it's certainly been said that pretty much ALL aux lighting is illegal--at least somewhere. But this is the first time I've heard personally of a ticket actually being issued. For example, in CA (I've "heard"), you can have a maximum of four forward-facing front lights on a bike. I personally now have EIGHT, counting the FJR headlight as two. I'm soon getting rid of two of them, but still--so far, no stops. Ditto the rear Hyper Lites. They flash while the brake is on. Law here says:

"Any [allowed] stoplamp or supplemental stoplamp . . .

may be equipped so as to flash not more than four

times within the first four seconds [after braking]."

-- CVC 25251.5©, and thanks for the cite, Happy Rider.

But I've never been stopped, even when right in front of any number of LEOs at a light. Of course, I may have been off the brake as much as possible, and Sacramento is definitely NOT hilly.

Frankly, I'd much rather take a chance on getting a ticket now and then for too many lights, if it decreases my chance of getting smacked from behind by some cell-phoning, text-sending, drunk, dreaming bozo. Too bad about your ticket, buf2phx. Hope you beat it.

 

[Happy Rider]

Frankly, I'd much rather take a chance on getting a ticket now and then for too many lights, if it decreases my chance of getting smacked from behind by some cell-phoning, text-sending, drunk, dreaming bozo. Too bad about your ticket, buf2phx. Hope you beat it.

+1 on the above. I can think of alot better things that need to be cited and corrected. I'm sure the "FAGS" in your area with their stupid ass loud pipes don't get cited.

Just be careful if you do decide to leave the light on and run into the prick LEO again. I don't know about Arizona law but here in The Peoples Republic of California you could be cited for section 24004 CVC which states in essence No person shall operate any vehicle after notice by a peace officer that the vehicle is not equipped as required by the vehicle code. This section is about a $300.00 fine and is a point on your record.

SacramentoMike:

Section 24405(a) CVC says not more than four lamps of the following types showing to the front of a vehicle may be lighted at any one time:

1. headlamps. (maximum of two lighted headlamps for motorcycles)

2. auxiliary driving or passing lamps (two auxiliary driving lamps can be used with the upper beam and may not be lighted with the lower beam and must be mounted not less than 16 inches or more than 42 inches. Two auxiliary passing lamps can be used with the the lower beam from the headlamps and may also be lighted with the upper beam. They must be mounted not less than 24 inches and no more than 42 inches.

3. fog lamps (maximum of two and not used in substitution with the headlamps)

4. warning lamps (I don't know what these are)

5. spot lamps (maximum of two not to exceed 32 candlepower or 30 watts nor project glaring light into the eyes of an approaching cager, may not use instead of headlamps)

6. gaseous discharge lamps specified in section 25258. (this is for LEO's)

What a mess!! This is why the vehicle code is over 600 pages.

 

[Ack535]

As a police officer myself, I am disgusted the officer in Phoenix wrote you. A police officers # 1 concern should always be in the best interests of public safety.

My recommendation would be to present your argument in court in a logical and thoughtful manner. Explain your past experiences and how auxillary rear end lighting helps keep all of us motorcyclist and 4 wheeled vehicles safe... There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. Clearly that officer that wrote you was following only the letter of the law. Too bad...

Pete

 

[FJR13k]

[SIZE=10pt]You might want to point out the law recognizes m/c's are more difficult to see by allowing E. A person may equip a motorcycle with a means of modulating the intensity of a head lamp beam between the higher and lower brightness. Modulating or flashing the brake light serves the same purpose and was clearly your intent.[/SIZE]

 

[HotRodZilla]

Do what you want, but as an ex-traffic cop who has written thousands of tickets; here's what I would do:

I would get a copy of the report of the freeway crash and take that with me to court. I would also start Googling motorcycle traffic crashes and get any reliable numbers you can that talk about motorcycles being harder to see. Your best bet would probably be to check with your state traffic safety office. Or the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration. They are an excellent resource.

Then I would argue THIS part of the statute: D. A vehicle may have lamps that may be used to warn the operators of other vehicles of the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring the exercise of unusual care in approaching, overtaking or passing. The vehicle may display these lamps as a warning in addition to any other warning signals required by this article.

Your argument should be that when a motorcycle is slowing to stop or turn, it is harder to see because motorcycles only have one rear light. Motorcycles are at more risk than cars because if a motorcycle is rearended by an inattentative motorist, the results are more devastating than if that inattentative motorist hit another car. After your crash on the freeway, you became more concerned about people being able to see you on the road, and you are trying to avoid being seriously injured or killed by installing lights that are more able to get people's attention.

The officer will probably get to testify first, but after he does, you get the opprotunity to ask him questions before you are supposed to testify. Ask him this, "Do you respond to traffic crashes?" His answer will be yes. "How many of those crashes, or what percentage of those crashes are crashes where one driver rear-ended another driver?" Then..."Of those crashes, how many times did you cite the driver that caused the crash with some type of innatentive driving; ie following too close, talking on a cell phone, careless driving, excessive speed etc." "How many people that have rear-ended another car told you, "I didn't see the other driver slowing/stopping until it was too late?"

Make sure the judge knows your light only flashes to warn others you are stopping. Also make sure your reasoning for the light is innatentive, drunk, sleepy, careless, or other wise dangerous drivers.

Ask the officer if he knows why NHTSA required all cars manufactured after 1985 (could be 1986...Not sure) to have a third brake light (Trucks followed up in like 1991 or something like that). The answer is because of the high number of rear-end crashes and the third light increases visibility just like your flashing light does.

Don't forget to ask the officer if he has ever been involved in a rear-end crash; whether he hit the car in front of him or the car behind him hit his car. Chances are he has been involved in one or both of those crashes.

You have to be articulate and patient, and go over the stuff you take to the court. Your chances of getting a dismissal are greatly increased, but not guaranteed. If you lose, you should definatly pay the small fee and appeal you case to District court. The lower court judge may simply find you guilty because they have a hard time making case law. District court judges make case law all the time and you may get a judge who realizes that law is written badly and can be fixed with some good case law. Also...If the lower court finds for you, the officer may continue to be a jackass and write you another ticket if he sees you. If the judgement comes in your favor out of district court, the chances are less that he will try to screw with one of those judges.

If I wasn't clear above, I think the officer that wrote you that ticket is an idiot. Every department has them. Another idea is to file a notice of discovery with the court, and make the officer supply you with all his traffic crash reports for the last two or three years. If he refuses, you win by default, but the chances of him citing you again increase. If he does get them to you, you have 10 days to review them before they can set another hearing. So if he waits until the hearing day, they have to continue the case to give you your 10 days. That paperwork will give you the answers to the questions above, so you can be prepared for the answers.

Good luck. Sorry some cops are idiots. Who knows...You may get lucky and get a judge who rides also. We have a few of them here.

Edit: FJR13k's post above is right on the money...use that too.

 

[ShinyPartsUp]

Thank you HotRodZilla for taking the time to post that response. I found it helpful.

 

[beemerdons]

A tax collector at work.

Have to agree with Rogue on this one. My 1996 BMW R1100GS has had Hyper Lites on it since October of 1995 and I've never had a problem. You met a tax collector!

 

[Brodie]

The OP has the Night Rider light module that also is able to show a wigwag light in motion during run mode. This draws attention to the rear of your bike as intended. It's unfortunate, IMHO, that the laws haven't kept up with the technology. I don't see where the flash 10 times then solid with brake light mode would cause any problems. I do see where the wigwag as a supplemental running light would cause problems. Granted the unit is less than 5 inches long, but at any distance the light does move in a noticeable side to side fashion. I suppose the phrase "To be used for decorative off road use only" would apply for that wigwag.

I also have on of these devices mounted just under my trunk facing rearward. My original intent was to hook up the wigwag to a fog light circuit. I drive year round, including in the fog on my way to work. Anything that would announce my presence in that limited visibility situation would be welcome. Unfortunately, I have yet to obtain fog lights and have been running the wigwag full time. I have followed my bike when I let other people try my car tyre out. It does draw your eyes to it - it's designed to. It does not make you appear as an emergency vehicle. It does not look like you have your emergency 4 way flashers on. It's just a moving "dancing" light above your tail light.

I'm afraid that we take our chances with the LEO community when we have these things on out bikes. Most of the officers may take notice but brush it off. However, as the OP found out at least one of the officers had a problem with it.

I may be hooking my fog light switch up in the near future.

Brodie

 

[exskibum]

I would do EXACTLY as HRZilla suggests. Great argument there, based on common sense that I think most judges or pro tems would buy.

 

[FJR-RemingtonRider]

At risk of chiming in off target....

Seeing how this law has been on the books and many have already been using other modular lamp devices to increase visibility....there could be an underlying intent here.

Not many officers would know off top just exactly what would be illegal on a MC, however had there been some intense focus been put on this by the department, then he

would be well aware. Perhaps the AZ LEO are about to take a step up towards motorcyclist in general to start targeting them for violations that may have gone unchecked

in the past. This could be just another avenue to increase revenue stream, spark forum discussions on this, or to let cyclist know they are being watched more closely, or

just to put MC riders on warning. It would be interesting to inquire with their dept. to find out how many MC riders have been cited in the past month compared to last year,

with the riding season about to go into full swing.......Wow..that's a wild thought, but possible.

Got some great advice to fight the system, all ya gotta do is take some days off work and spend them preparing for court and then in court and getting the date reset a couple

times because somebody's busy......Good luck in taking up the cause.

 

[Bounce]

I'd fight it under section D as previously expressed. I think if you are lucky the cop won't show/bother or you'll get a judge with common sense. I'd bring in a lot of evidence of motorcycles' vulnerability from the rear. You might also contact nightrider and see if they have any experience with this.
Let us know, as I have one installed.

getting off on failure of the cop to appear is a rare thing these days. cops now get paid to be in traffic court. they often get disciplined for failure to appear. they show. HRZilla's recommendations are top notch.

 

[Moon Man]

I think hotrodzilla's post is really well thought out.

After looking at the video it seems that the "wig-wag" motion is what got you in trouble. I have never seen a "moving" LED light on anything other than an emergency vehicle before, the thought of a vehicle traveling underway with blinking lights on it is worrisome.

Brake flashers to me are just fine, as they indicate a CHANGE in the status of the vehicle (braking). The whole night rider thing, though definitly eye-catching, is a possible public nuisance, and could confuse a driver's perception of emergency vehicles and first responders.

Maybe a kind judge would let you argue this away, I don't think that you deserve a ticket. But if every vehicle on the road had these (even every motorcycle), it might drive the public a little batty.

 

[buf2phx]

I think hotrodzilla's post is really well thought out.
After looking at the video it seems that the "wig-wag" motion is what got you in trouble. I have never seen a "moving" LED light on anything other than an emergency vehicle before, the thought of a vehicle traveling underway with blinking lights on it is worrisome.

Brake flashers to me are just fine, as they indicate a CHANGE in the status of the vehicle (braking). The whole night rider thing, though definitly eye-catching, is a possible public nuisance, and could confuse a driver's perception of emergency vehicles and first responders.

Maybe a kind judge would let you argue this away, I don't think that you deserve a ticket. But if every vehicle on the road had these (even every motorcycle), it might drive the public a little batty.

That's the question I'm trying to get answered now:Is either mode of operation acceptable? So far ADOT has been less than helpful. Dave at Custom Dynamics has been very helpful however. If you need any lighting products,check their site. www.customdynamics.com I have no affiliation,but like to support companies with great customer service.

Mike