Well, your arguement would have to rest on how a 'light' is defined and how 'reflector' is defined. But from a point of physics that should be child's play to define in the court's favor...but don't let me stop you...

You raise an interesting point about Sunset, however. There is a specific section of the code titled: Providing Unlawful Equipment where, in a nutshell, it states that a person commits an offense if selling equipment that violates state equipment administrative rules (815.075).

So, do you want to tell Jeff at Sunset or should I?

LOL!!!

Here ya go...

PROVIDING UNLAWFUL EQUIPMENT

815.075 Selling vehicles or equipment that violates rules; exemptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of selling vehicles or equipment that violates state equipment administrative rules if the person sells or offers for sale any vehicle or sells or offers for sale for use upon a vehicle or uses on any vehicle any equipment if the vehicle or equipment:

(a) Does not conform to standards established by the Department of Transportation by rule under ORS 815.030; and

(b) Does not bear thereon proof of certification that it complies with the applicable standards.

(2) Proof of certification required under this section may be made in any manner provided under ORS 815.030.

(3) This section is subject to the following exemptions in addition to any exemptions under ORS 801.026:

(a) Vehicles of special interest that are registered under ORS 805.020 are deemed to comply with this section if:

(A) The vehicles are equipped with original manufacturer’s equipment and accessories, or their equivalent, and are maintained in safe operating order; or

(B) The vehicles are street rods that conform to ORS 815.107.

(b) Road machinery, road rollers, implements of husbandry, farm trailers and farm tractors are not subject to this section.

(c) Antique vehicles are not subject to this section if the vehicles are maintained as collectors’ items and used for exhibitions, parades, club activities and similar uses, but not used primarily for the transportation of persons or property.

(4) The offense described under this section, selling vehicles or equipment that violates state equipment administrative rules, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §450; 1985 c.16 §237; 1989 c.402 §6; 1995 c.79 §375; 1995 c.383 §23; 1997 c.402 §6]

 

I'd take that action..I just went down there with my Xenon flashlight. It is absolutely not a reflector, it is a lens. Go compare it to your reflector on the side of the taillight. The difference is clear. (no pun intended)...

 

Hi Dell...

That is interesting. I'll be up a Rasmussen Mecedes in Portland on Friday...I'll check out the '05's and see what they come in with...

You know, for all the hoopla about amber reflectors and amber lights, I think the cops have far better things to do then look for ridiculous minor issues like this.

Thx...

Jim

 

[QUOTE=leedav]Jim,

I found this re the parking lights.

"(2) Parking lights and lights other than clearance, identification and marker lights that are mounted on the front of a vehicle and are designed to be

Kool Lee...what is the citation? I can't find it in the code.

(see what you started)...

Jim

 

811.515

 

Great pun Lee!!

Well, you see, you just have to add this into the court mix. You simply stir the pot and let the paddle go.

If the glove don't fit you must acquit!!!

(my man Johnny!)

Jim

 

LOL!

 

OK I see it...

Thx Lee...

I think what this means Lee is that when there is limited visibility you cant drive with JUST your parking lights. When you are parked along the roadside then parking lights would be OK

A "reasonable person" would use headlights or a combination of headlights and parking lights when there is limited visibility such as when Mnt St. Helens blows her top, shortly after dusk or shortly before dawn.

I don't read where it is unlawful to drive around with your parking lights on in any other condition such as daylight to perhaps dusk, or shortly aftter dawn because you could perhaps argue that visibility is greater than 'limited'.

What about those stupid running lights?

God I hated those things...

Jim

 

Yup. I guess I misunderstood when I read the driver's manual when I arrived here in '97. I hate DRL's too. My company car has them. erk.

I think you should look at the clear marker. It does not reflect at all. Put it back on and challenge the system (it won't make any points on your license, right?)!

I am surprised they pulled you over just for that, too. Were there happy noises coming from the back of your car?

 

I was surprised too but I think why he pulled me over was because I went thru the round about twice. In other words going in circles. He was coming up Terwilliger from the LO side and saw me. He probably figured I was DUI. When I saw him look at me I decided I'd better exit the round about and head back down the hill. As far as I can tell I was breaking no code by staying in the round about and just going in circles when no one was waiting to enter. Just my luck that the person trying to get in was in a police car.

When he approached the car he looked down at the front license plate and tags and then glanced at the side of my car and looked at the clear markers. Once he was certain I was "normal" and not wacked on booze or other substance he gave me a warning about the side reflector.

Like I said earier...he was really pretty cool and wanted to know how the car handled in corners and stuff like that...

Jim

 

Hey Dell...

I was at the MB dealer downtown this afternoon. The side markers are amber on all the 2005 models that I was looking at. Are we speaking about the same thing...i.e., the little side reflector lites on the lower front fenders?

Jim

 

Not sure. But, I will tell you this, I have absolutely nothing amber on my MB. I will snap a pic in the morning and post it so we can compare notes.

 

Maybe back in '00 there was no amber reflector requirement. That's the only thing I can think of.

 

Nope. I did a little checking to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Both mine and the newer ML's have the side reflector/turn signal in clear with an amber bulb as well as the front turn signal/reflector in clear with an amber bulb. Not a spec of amber plastic anywhere in the car. Very odd. Called my parents and their S500, SL500, and CLK 500 (all 2005 models) all have an amber side marke But their X5 (2005 model) has a clear side marker just like the ML. Maybe it is an SUV thing?

 

[QUOTE=LVDell]Nope. I did a little checking to make sure I wasn't going crazy.

We were looking at the E320 sedan. Every car in the place plus in their lot were with amber reflectors. The SUV, if I recall correctly, did not have a stand alone side reflector. Rather it had an amber side lite in the one piece headlamp assembly. That is a nice piece of equipment...

Maybe instead of an E320 I'll get my wife an Unimog with full trenching and drilling rig. I can see her now heading down I-5 in her best St. John's driving a Unimog...