HID's
04-22-2011, 01:20 AM
#41
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, as far as enforcement goes, there are states and jurisdictions that know the law and go after illegal HID retrofits. VA and MD are notorious for it; CA/NY/NJ have some spotty enforcement.
The penalty is $10,000 fine --- and you park your car and take a cab home...
I spoke to a local LEO here in GA last week about it. Not only didn't he know the law, he was completely oblivious to it and thought that illegal HIDs were legal and that yellow lights were illegal. He said that he targetted the yellow crowd and wrote lots of tickets for it.
The DOT says that headlight sources have to be white; some old European standards called for yellow. White certainly will work better though.
If it comes down to an accident, one caused by glare from your illegal HID retrofit, do you really think the juice was worth the squeeze if you now face legal and civil penalties? That's not just fines, that's jail time when you talk about culpable liability.
Give it a think.
The penalty is $10,000 fine --- and you park your car and take a cab home...
I spoke to a local LEO here in GA last week about it. Not only didn't he know the law, he was completely oblivious to it and thought that illegal HIDs were legal and that yellow lights were illegal. He said that he targetted the yellow crowd and wrote lots of tickets for it.
The DOT says that headlight sources have to be white; some old European standards called for yellow. White certainly will work better though.
If it comes down to an accident, one caused by glare from your illegal HID retrofit, do you really think the juice was worth the squeeze if you now face legal and civil penalties? That's not just fines, that's jail time when you talk about culpable liability.
Give it a think.
Provide a link if you can please. I would love to see it.
04-22-2011, 02:01 AM
#42
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another LINK to the related laws.
Federal law in this area supercedes any and all states' laws in states where federal monies are allocated for highway funding ---- uh, all of them, in other words.
Prior to 2005 it was illegal to install any aftermarket lighting devices in place of OE reflectors. In 2005 the NHTSA re-interpretted FMVSS and changed their view on installing alternate reflectors as well as alternate light sources (ie, HID, LED, HIR, etc). Their only provision being that the source match the reflector, the photometry tested and proved compliant with either DOT or ECE criteria.
That was a milestone for them and I don't think it unreasonable at all.
Federal law in this area supercedes any and all states' laws in states where federal monies are allocated for highway funding ---- uh, all of them, in other words.
Prior to 2005 it was illegal to install any aftermarket lighting devices in place of OE reflectors. In 2005 the NHTSA re-interpretted FMVSS and changed their view on installing alternate reflectors as well as alternate light sources (ie, HID, LED, HIR, etc). Their only provision being that the source match the reflector, the photometry tested and proved compliant with either DOT or ECE criteria.
That was a milestone for them and I don't think it unreasonable at all.
What you have to understand is that halogen burners, HID arc capsules, & LED emitters all produce light in different ways, different spectrums, different focal lengths, etc. There is no one-size-fits-all method of delivering that light. Due to the orientation of the sources in HID and halogen, everything is skewed if you start swapping components. It just doesn't work.
Remember that the idea is to see where you're going, not blind others, and not create a situation where you might blind yourself. HID capsules in halogen reflectors scatter light willy-nilly; just look at one of those "kits" in action on a foggy day and you'll understand what I mean.
As for "where" the light is produced, I don't get it. Filament type lights produce light by the radiation of a heated filament in a nonreactive environment. HID lights produce light in nearly the exact same area by exiting gas to emit light. The area that the produce the light is in nearly the exact same place. After random light is emitted it will exhibit no special properties, unless it is a laser beam. The light does not know where it came from. When it is emitted, it will reflect on the same pattern as any other light. The led issue, as leds are built with their own reflectors is a little different, but we don't need to worry about that here. Just HID vs Incandescent.
The only issue would be the brightness, and I believe this is by watts. 35 watts for HID, 55 watts for incandescent. No? HID does produce more light, that is well....the point. But that extra light is not all directed towards oncoming traffic. It is certainly an issue when people install a kit that has more wattage than allowed (55 watt HID) and is not white light. That is probably your complaint.
I am reading it, but slowly. If you have a page number, paragraph, etc, that details it is illegal to install HID bulbs in filament reflectors, please just link THAT law. You seem to be sure, so you have probably read it. Save me the trouble of trudging through 200 pages of dense government documents please.
04-22-2011, 02:14 AM
#43
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I had to add this from your link: "While this action results from NHTSA's authority to regulate new motor vehicles sold to the public, NHTSA does not regulate motor vehicles in use. The states have that responsibility. Thus, it is the states that have the authority to regulate the safe condition and operation of motor vehicles in use. Headlamp aim and condition inspection is an area that is addressed by many states. However, many states do not have periodic motor vehicle inspection, and even those that do, do not always inspect headlamps."
Until further information, I guess I would have to say you were wrong. The NHTSA regulates what can be sold, not what can be used. No big surprise. Since that is from the NHTSA's mouth, I will accept it as truth. I will still read it all, but now we are back to state laws. So I guess I can ask the other poster - PLEASE post the $10k fine statute. I don't care WHAT state it is from.
ETA - I am not asking if you think someone with an HID kit is an asshole. To be honest, I don't really care. You can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself. Haha. Only if it is ILLEGAL. As an aside, I think retards who bought homes no money down and complain that their retardation led them to be in financial trouble, then lobby for bailouts, are assholes.. But they did nothing illegal. They are different issues.
Until further information, I guess I would have to say you were wrong. The NHTSA regulates what can be sold, not what can be used. No big surprise. Since that is from the NHTSA's mouth, I will accept it as truth. I will still read it all, but now we are back to state laws. So I guess I can ask the other poster - PLEASE post the $10k fine statute. I don't care WHAT state it is from.
ETA - I am not asking if you think someone with an HID kit is an asshole. To be honest, I don't really care. You can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself. Haha. Only if it is ILLEGAL. As an aside, I think retards who bought homes no money down and complain that their retardation led them to be in financial trouble, then lobby for bailouts, are assholes.. But they did nothing illegal. They are different issues.
Last edited by rickyj; 04-22-2011 at 02:26 AM.
04-22-2011, 06:04 AM
#44
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Quantico, VA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read this and follow Dan's links.
Any other questions, either ping Dan Stern or Scheinwerfermann on Candlepower Forums; they're both real-live experts in the automotive lighting field.
Better yet, join CPF and post your thoughts about light sources there. Really, do it.
Any other questions, either ping Dan Stern or Scheinwerfermann on Candlepower Forums; they're both real-live experts in the automotive lighting field.
Better yet, join CPF and post your thoughts about light sources there. Really, do it.
04-22-2011, 10:43 PM
#45
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read this and follow Dan's links.
Any other questions, either ping Dan Stern or Scheinwerfermann on Candlepower Forums; they're both real-live experts in the automotive lighting field.
Any other questions, either ping Dan Stern or Scheinwerfermann on Candlepower Forums; they're both real-live experts in the automotive lighting field.
Here is a sample one, about the simple act of crossing at a crosswalk in Colorado:
42-4-802. Pedestrians' right-of-way in crosswalks.
(1) When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply under the conditions stated in section 42-4-803.
(3) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, ride an electrical assisted bicycle, walk, or run into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.
(5) Whenever special pedestrian-control signals exhibiting "Walk" or "Don't Walk" word or symbol indications are in place, as declared in the traffic control manual adopted by the department of transportation, such signals shall indicate and require as follows:
(a) "Walk" (steady): While the "Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal indication and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.
(b) "Don't Walk" (steady): While the "Don't Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, no pedestrian shall enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.
(c) "Don't Walk" (flashing): Whenever the "Don't Walk" indication is flashing, no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal indication, but any pedestrian who has partly completed crossing during the "Walk" indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or to a safety island, and all drivers of vehicles shall yield to any such pedestrian.
(d) Whenever a signal system provides for the stopping of all vehicular traffic and the exclusive movement of pedestrians and "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signal indications control such pedestrian movement, pedestrians may cross in any direction between corners of the intersection offering the shortest route within the boundaries of the intersection while the "Walk" indication is exhibited, if signals and other official devices direct pedestrian movement in such manner consistent with section 42-4-803 (4).
(6) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.
Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2352, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2005: (3) amended, p. 1354, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2009: (3) amended, (HB 09-1026), ch. 281, p. 1277, § 53, effective October 1.
(1) When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply under the conditions stated in section 42-4-803.
(3) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, ride an electrical assisted bicycle, walk, or run into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.
(5) Whenever special pedestrian-control signals exhibiting "Walk" or "Don't Walk" word or symbol indications are in place, as declared in the traffic control manual adopted by the department of transportation, such signals shall indicate and require as follows:
(a) "Walk" (steady): While the "Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal indication and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.
(b) "Don't Walk" (steady): While the "Don't Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, no pedestrian shall enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.
(c) "Don't Walk" (flashing): Whenever the "Don't Walk" indication is flashing, no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal indication, but any pedestrian who has partly completed crossing during the "Walk" indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or to a safety island, and all drivers of vehicles shall yield to any such pedestrian.
(d) Whenever a signal system provides for the stopping of all vehicular traffic and the exclusive movement of pedestrians and "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signal indications control such pedestrian movement, pedestrians may cross in any direction between corners of the intersection offering the shortest route within the boundaries of the intersection while the "Walk" indication is exhibited, if signals and other official devices direct pedestrian movement in such manner consistent with section 42-4-803 (4).
(6) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.
Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2352, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2005: (3) amended, p. 1354, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2009: (3) amended, (HB 09-1026), ch. 281, p. 1277, § 53, effective October 1.
Better yet, join CPF and post your thoughts about light sources there. Really, do it.
04-22-2011, 10:52 PM
#46
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add, I have read through the lighting equipment section of Colorado statute 42.4.2##. I haven't found anything about HID. And the section is thorough enough that it would be in there. So it is apparently a federal law, federal law is a little harder to navigate in my experience, so a "point to" would be very appreciated.
04-24-2011, 02:20 AM
#47
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Quantico, VA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A local guy here wrote the feds a letter; we had been chatting about it for a while:
In 2003 the NHTSA published a notice of draft interpretation for FMVSS 108 which addresses vehicle lighting. That stated (or at least was interpreted) that fitting HID headlights to any vehicle that didn't come from the factory with HID's was illegal.
SEMA pushed for a reinterpretation and in Nov 2005 issued this press release:
http://elitecm.net/forums/index.php?topic=155.0 (Sorry, I can't find it on SEMA's web site)
The actual NHTSA reinterpretation is here:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21725.pdf
Unfortunately, I suppose because of "government speak" combined with wishful thinking on the part of some folks, some people, including HID kit sellers, are taking the 2005 reinterpretation as meaning you can buy HID kits and stick them in your halogen housings. A search of car forums will show a lot of people making that claim. However, a careful reading of the above pdf shows this isn't true, despite people's claims otherwise.
But I decided to go to the source anyway, to make sure.
I contacted the local NHTSA office and it took some time, but yesterday I received a call from an attorney in the DC office who works for Steven P. Wood, chief counsel for the NHTSA, the person who wrote the above document.
What he told me was that I was correct, that you cannot buy an HID kit and install it in your existing halogen housing. Howver, if you can find an off-the-shelf DOT compliant HID assembly that you can replace your entire housing with, then you're fine.
As an example, for a Land Rover Discovery 1 you would have to buy HID units that are a direct replacement for STC1237 and STC1238.
Anything else is illegal in all 50 states.
I asked them if they would consider publishing a simplified human speak version and he said he'd pass the request on to his boss.
He also mentioned that they are getting a lot of calls from law enforcement asking for the same clarification, so even if you don't care that all retrofit kits are illegal, don't assume you won't get stopped by the police for it.
SEMA pushed for a reinterpretation and in Nov 2005 issued this press release:
http://elitecm.net/forums/index.php?topic=155.0 (Sorry, I can't find it on SEMA's web site)
The actual NHTSA reinterpretation is here:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21725.pdf
Unfortunately, I suppose because of "government speak" combined with wishful thinking on the part of some folks, some people, including HID kit sellers, are taking the 2005 reinterpretation as meaning you can buy HID kits and stick them in your halogen housings. A search of car forums will show a lot of people making that claim. However, a careful reading of the above pdf shows this isn't true, despite people's claims otherwise.
But I decided to go to the source anyway, to make sure.
I contacted the local NHTSA office and it took some time, but yesterday I received a call from an attorney in the DC office who works for Steven P. Wood, chief counsel for the NHTSA, the person who wrote the above document.
What he told me was that I was correct, that you cannot buy an HID kit and install it in your existing halogen housing. Howver, if you can find an off-the-shelf DOT compliant HID assembly that you can replace your entire housing with, then you're fine.
As an example, for a Land Rover Discovery 1 you would have to buy HID units that are a direct replacement for STC1237 and STC1238.
Anything else is illegal in all 50 states.
I asked them if they would consider publishing a simplified human speak version and he said he'd pass the request on to his boss.
He also mentioned that they are getting a lot of calls from law enforcement asking for the same clarification, so even if you don't care that all retrofit kits are illegal, don't assume you won't get stopped by the police for it.
04-24-2011, 10:06 PM
#48
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh.....
I read it, did you? If you have actual knowledge of why it is illegal, please just post instead of linking to huge documents and saying "its in there somewhere, I'm sure of it." Maybe just ask the guys on candlepower.
Far from backing you up, this article seems to blow holes in the idea that it is illegal to install other bulbs.
So, forget the letters pre 2005 that were linked by the Cibie salesman, as they are now irrelevant. The Cibie salesman being Dan Stern. The only "proof" he provides is pre 2005. If of course you ignore the absurd examples from the UK, Germany and Hong Kong. It is illegal to own a AR15 in the UK, is it illegal here? Age of consent in Germany is 16, gonna try that here? Etc. As he is so sure, he should link CURRENT laws from the United States.
Also, it is certainly not defacto illegal to install HID bulbs in place of filament bulbs, as stated above. In fact it says quite plainly that it is at least potentially legal to do so. I saw nothing in this notice of interpretation to mandate that bulbs matched reflectors. Headlamps must match side to side, and they dealt with this in great detail - but that is common sense.
You have a paragraph number in § 571.108 that deals with this situation in mind?
I think it is fair and reasonable that as you are the one claiming it is illegal, that you be the one to provide the proof. If I told you it was illegal to walk your dog on Thursdays, I would point you to the law. Not say "it is a federal law", search for it. In a situation like this, you have the burden of proof. All of the "evidence" you have provided has been contrary to your position, unless it is hidden somewhere in § 571.108.
But even IF it is in § 571.108, we have to remember the statement from NHTSA: "NHTSA does not regulate motor vehicles in use. The states have that responsibility". That would make it irrelevant for every person other than new vehicle manufactures, final use manufactures, and bulb manufactures.
I read it, did you? If you have actual knowledge of why it is illegal, please just post instead of linking to huge documents and saying "its in there somewhere, I'm sure of it." Maybe just ask the guys on candlepower.
Far from backing you up, this article seems to blow holes in the idea that it is illegal to install other bulbs.
.............
Revised Interpretation
........
It (FMVSS No. 108) does not say anything about the replacement lamps being required to have the same type of light source as the OE lamp.........
...........
neither the language of S5.8.1 nor any other language in the standard requires replacement headlamps to use the same light sources as the OE headlamps............
..........
............
Effect on previous interpretations. This notice of interpretation modifies and supersedes our October 2004 interpretation, to the extent that it is inconsistent. It also supersedes our March 13, 2003 interpretation letter to Mr. Galen Chen concerning replacement headlamp light sources...............
........
Revised Interpretation
........
It (FMVSS No. 108) does not say anything about the replacement lamps being required to have the same type of light source as the OE lamp.........
...........
neither the language of S5.8.1 nor any other language in the standard requires replacement headlamps to use the same light sources as the OE headlamps............
..........
............
Effect on previous interpretations. This notice of interpretation modifies and supersedes our October 2004 interpretation, to the extent that it is inconsistent. It also supersedes our March 13, 2003 interpretation letter to Mr. Galen Chen concerning replacement headlamp light sources...............
........
Also, it is certainly not defacto illegal to install HID bulbs in place of filament bulbs, as stated above. In fact it says quite plainly that it is at least potentially legal to do so. I saw nothing in this notice of interpretation to mandate that bulbs matched reflectors. Headlamps must match side to side, and they dealt with this in great detail - but that is common sense.
You have a paragraph number in § 571.108 that deals with this situation in mind?
I think it is fair and reasonable that as you are the one claiming it is illegal, that you be the one to provide the proof. If I told you it was illegal to walk your dog on Thursdays, I would point you to the law. Not say "it is a federal law", search for it. In a situation like this, you have the burden of proof. All of the "evidence" you have provided has been contrary to your position, unless it is hidden somewhere in § 571.108.
But even IF it is in § 571.108, we have to remember the statement from NHTSA: "NHTSA does not regulate motor vehicles in use. The states have that responsibility". That would make it irrelevant for every person other than new vehicle manufactures, final use manufactures, and bulb manufactures.
Last edited by rickyj; 04-24-2011 at 10:29 PM.
04-24-2011, 10:20 PM
#49
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GoodYear,Az
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anything else is illegal in all 50 states.
I asked them if they would consider publishing a simplified human speak version and he said he'd pass the request on to his boss.
He also mentioned that they are getting a lot of calls from law enforcement asking for the same clarification, so even if you don't care that all retrofit kits are illegal, don't assume you won't get stopped by the police for it."
This is all funny to me. If you ever get pulled over for them to check to see if you have "REAL" HID housings, they need to get a real job
Real cops do real cop work, not playing hall monitor. I live in Phoenix, and the REAL cops here have better things to do and can give 2 SH**S about your HID set up and will never on your worst day get rolled for this
I asked them if they would consider publishing a simplified human speak version and he said he'd pass the request on to his boss.
He also mentioned that they are getting a lot of calls from law enforcement asking for the same clarification, so even if you don't care that all retrofit kits are illegal, don't assume you won't get stopped by the police for it."
This is all funny to me. If you ever get pulled over for them to check to see if you have "REAL" HID housings, they need to get a real job
Real cops do real cop work, not playing hall monitor. I live in Phoenix, and the REAL cops here have better things to do and can give 2 SH**S about your HID set up and will never on your worst day get rolled for this
04-24-2011, 11:05 PM
#50
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anything else is illegal in all 50 states.
I asked them if they would consider publishing a simplified human speak version and he said he'd pass the request on to his boss.
He also mentioned that they are getting a lot of calls from law enforcement asking for the same clarification, so even if you don't care that all retrofit kits are illegal, don't assume you won't get stopped by the police for it."
This is all funny to me. If you ever get pulled over for them to check to see if you have "REAL" HID housings, they need to get a real job
Real cops do real cop work, not playing hall monitor. I live in Phoenix, and the REAL cops here have better things to do and can give 2 SH**S about your HID set up and will never on your worst day get rolled for this
I asked them if they would consider publishing a simplified human speak version and he said he'd pass the request on to his boss.
He also mentioned that they are getting a lot of calls from law enforcement asking for the same clarification, so even if you don't care that all retrofit kits are illegal, don't assume you won't get stopped by the police for it."
This is all funny to me. If you ever get pulled over for them to check to see if you have "REAL" HID housings, they need to get a real job
Real cops do real cop work, not playing hall monitor. I live in Phoenix, and the REAL cops here have better things to do and can give 2 SH**S about your HID set up and will never on your worst day get rolled for this
They only exist to hassle good people about nonsense technical violations, as they are probably scared about the real bad guys. Personally I am not going to worry about it, mainly because I don't think it is illegal - but even IF it is REAL cops as you said have better things to worry about. I'll take my chances to be able to see the lane markings in the rain.