That article is word salad. Even the headline isn't supported by the article. One of the problems with discussing the legality of anything is the ignorance of laws and anybody repeating something they think they heard from some who may have read something on FaceBook. "I beleive..."I think..." "Logically..." The last is one of my favorites as it usually means "no logic was harmed or used in formulating this opinion".
When discussing a law someone should have actually read the section and maybe have the code section handy so anyone can read the law themselves. Or at least so the posters themselves understand what they're trying to discuss. That article doesn't meet that standard to any meaningful degree.
I saw a YouTube video one some police action and a commenter stated that in Utah someone can't be convicted of trespass if a resident has a WELCOME mat on their porch. Oh it's logical because it's a posted invitation into the house. If they didn't want uninvited guests then should have had a not trespassing sign. I've never been to UT so I don't know.
Point being we haven't actually see this lighting law and have no idea of the level of accuracy in the article. In general terms making it illegal to retrofit an LED — as in putting one into an reflector assembly not designed for one — has merit. There are still a lot of bad bulbs out there and manufacturer claims for performance and specs can be all over the place. Add to this that some riders don't know their state's standard for aiming headlight. They base the accuracy of their retrofit on whether or not they get flashed by other vehicles. Whiskey Tango! That borders on being irresponsible.
On the other hand some riders follow recommendations of others far more experienced and then take the time to adjust their headlight in accordance with state law. If a law bans retrofits then they're in violation. I wouldn't be happy if I got stopped but I'd
know going in that I was in violation and what that might mean.
The requirement to slow to 50kph/30mph seems severe. Is that aspect a remnant of an old law or is it something that has been introduced relatively recently to address the newer much brighter and different colour temperature lights on many newer vehicles now?
No doubt slowing down when using low beams is to prevent overdriving your headlights. Talk about a law that would be a little tough to enforce. CA like some other states required headlights on when operation wipers in inclement weather (24400c CVC). Good luck with that.
Writing a ticket for a retrofit LED is a matter of knowing what bikes had them from the factory and what bikes didn't. That's one heck of a list. These days you can have a PDR on your phone. So someone certified list of bikes wouldn't be a problem to have. Just create. LOL. So many cops don't know lighting laws anyway. Getting certification that your retrofit meets federal standards and not having no states object? I don't think I'd hold my breath for that.
As to not wearing a helmet in another state because yours doesn't require one (for you)? I don't see personal safety equipment as the same thing as an vehicle equipment. I don't know that there's a mandatory requirement in federal law.
I wear a helmet all the time since it became the law. But when in Helena MT I didn't wear one for local runs and it was nice. But on the road again I put it on.
As a ute someone I know talked about a personal experience riding to NV. He got stopped every time he was in NV so he'd add a second mirror before traveling. At the time I seem to recall CA only requiring only one mirror on a motorcycle. I'm guessing that federal law only required one? Back then I didn't care. I never got stopped for having only one mirror. When I got a new bike it had both mirrors on so that's the way it stayed.
I'll stay clear of MA.
unionrayo.com
