Blinking 3rd Brake Light - Great Product #2
- Thread starter Best F100
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
These devices are illegal in all states and should not be used. Federal law requires that brake lamps on passenger vehicles to be steady-burning. You will note that a total of ZERO (0) vehicle manufacturers install pulsing brake lamps. There is a reason for that.
They're legal in Maine (source- page 5) but I don't know how that trumps the NHTSA.
I figure the original CHMSL from 1986 should be enough to prevent rear-ending crashes.
When cars started having DRLs motorcycles got (aftermarket) flashing highbeams. When will it end?
I have had the flashing motorcycles behind me. Confused me. I thought it was an officer on a motorcycle and pulled over ...
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
These devices are illegal in all states and should not be used. Federal law requires that brake lamps on passenger vehicles to be steady-burning. You will note that a total of ZERO (0) vehicle manufacturers install pulsing brake lamps. There is a reason for that.
They're legal in Maine (source- page 5) but I don't know how that trumps the NHTSA.
I figure the original CHMSL from 1986 should be enough to prevent rear-ending crashes.
I have had the flashing motorcycles behind me. Confused me. I thought it was an officer on a motorcycle and pulled over ...
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
My first email message with them was not successful. They played it dumb, and pointed me to the FMVSS statutes.
My response was a question that was succinct and to the point, that requires a yes or no answer. We'll see what they respond with.
You're doing the right thing by holding them accountable. It's usually a sure sign that they don't know what they're doing when they have "DOT certified!" and such on their website; it shows a real lack of understanding of the system...the DOT doesn't certify anything.
Kisan's website has no such claims, however. I think they know that what they're selling is not permitted by the federal regulations, and so they've gone to no effort to blow smoke up anyone's tail by putting nonsense claims like "DOT certified" on their packaging. Critically, though, they also don't tell you that what they're selling is not legal. Some of their products are 100% road legal (or at least appear to be), such as the headlamp modulator. But some of their products are not legal (such as the stoplamp modulator). It's interesting that they point to the FMVSS statues (probably in a very general sense, so as to cause you to assume they know what they're doing). The very CFR they reference would send them up the creek if any enforcement agency actually took them to task on it.
As with ANY lighting modification, whether it's something like this or a DIY headlamp relay, one must be very prudent to do a quality job installing it and checking on the quality of the product in the first place. A quick look at Kisan's FAQ page (here) demonstrates how important getting good grounds and good wiring connections. Because the LAST thing you want to do is to make a change that worsens the durability of your lighting system.
Here's something I dug up last night:
http://www.calcoast-itl.com/assets/nhtsa-interpretations-2004-review.pdf
It's an NHTSA interpretation document. The first entry (docket #16928) disallows the State of Tennessee from using "oscillating motorcycle stop lamps". Essentially, they are saying, "Tennessee, you say you are allowing them, but they are still illegal."
Further down, docket #17078 says, "Ruled that deceleration activated flashing brake lamps violated FMVSS 108 regulations. FMVSS 108 S5.5.10 requires that a stop lamp be steady burning. NHTSA specifies that this is necessary to maintain uniformity of signals to insure recognition by the general public."
Docket # 19574 says, "FMVSS 108 mandates that stop lamps be steady burning when activated. Strobe stop lamps would not be permissible."
There's really a lot of consistent information from the regulators on steady burning stop lamps.
My first email message with them was not successful. They played it dumb, and pointed me to the FMVSS statutes.
My response was a question that was succinct and to the point, that requires a yes or no answer. We'll see what they respond with.
You're doing the right thing by holding them accountable. It's usually a sure sign that they don't know what they're doing when they have "DOT certified!" and such on their website; it shows a real lack of understanding of the system...the DOT doesn't certify anything.
Kisan's website has no such claims, however. I think they know that what they're selling is not permitted by the federal regulations, and so they've gone to no effort to blow smoke up anyone's tail by putting nonsense claims like "DOT certified" on their packaging. Critically, though, they also don't tell you that what they're selling is not legal. Some of their products are 100% road legal (or at least appear to be), such as the headlamp modulator. But some of their products are not legal (such as the stoplamp modulator). It's interesting that they point to the FMVSS statues (probably in a very general sense, so as to cause you to assume they know what they're doing). The very CFR they reference would send them up the creek if any enforcement agency actually took them to task on it.
As with ANY lighting modification, whether it's something like this or a DIY headlamp relay, one must be very prudent to do a quality job installing it and checking on the quality of the product in the first place. A quick look at Kisan's FAQ page (here) demonstrates how important getting good grounds and good wiring connections. Because the LAST thing you want to do is to make a change that worsens the durability of your lighting system.
Here's something I dug up last night:
http://www.calcoast-itl.com/assets/nhtsa-interpretations-2004-review.pdf
It's an NHTSA interpretation document. The first entry (docket #16928) disallows the State of Tennessee from using "oscillating motorcycle stop lamps". Essentially, they are saying, "Tennessee, you say you are allowing them, but they are still illegal."
Further down, docket #17078 says, "Ruled that deceleration activated flashing brake lamps violated FMVSS 108 regulations. FMVSS 108 S5.5.10 requires that a stop lamp be steady burning. NHTSA specifies that this is necessary to maintain uniformity of signals to insure recognition by the general public."
Docket # 19574 says, "FMVSS 108 mandates that stop lamps be steady burning when activated. Strobe stop lamps would not be permissible."
There's really a lot of consistent information from the regulators on steady burning stop lamps.
I guess I started breaking the federal automotive lighting laws back in the 70s/80s.
I was clever..the Feds never noticed the euro H4 halogen headlamps in my cars or motorcycles. "for off-road use only" was how H4 halogen headlamps were sold back then. Some federal law about only having "incandescent sealed beam" headlamps. A Federal safety regulation well subsidized by GE and Sylvania..the big sealed beam headlamp manufactures at the time.
Then I got bold and installed the illegal euro rear lenses on my 911...some federal law stated you could only have red lens on the rear of any automotive vehicle...it may be still be the law. Don't care..and "rear fog lamps" were illegal here in the USA too..yep..I had that on my car too.
Now realizing that I was immune from federal arrest and prosecution..I went wild and installed a device that illuminated the rear turn signals brightly with the activated brake light on my BMW R75/5 motorcycle..and at the same time..kept the rear turn signals softly illuminated when the headlamp was on too. I don't recall..but I'm sure they flashed a few times too, when you applied the brakes. It worked well..never had a problem being hit in 100k+ miles of riding..thank God!
Most recently..after my wife was rear ended by a texting driver (he broke the anti-texting law too..but was not cited for texting while driving..only following too close)..I did installed one of those flashing third brake light modules from superbrightleds.com on her DD Audi. Works very well..4 fast flashes..4 slow flashes..then steady ON..
It works well on tail-gating drivers..lightly touch the brakes and they move back..confused..maybe..but it got their attention.
My point being if you know something makes your driving safer and increases you odds of survival..do it..superior headlamps..tail-lamps..rear fog lamps..flashing brake lamps whatever..try it.
The Federal laws and whether something is illegal or not ...don't get me started.
In 40 years I have not ever had a legal automotive/motorcycle lighting problem or citation. Feds/State/Local cops don't care.
I was clever..the Feds never noticed the euro H4 halogen headlamps in my cars or motorcycles. "for off-road use only" was how H4 halogen headlamps were sold back then. Some federal law about only having "incandescent sealed beam" headlamps. A Federal safety regulation well subsidized by GE and Sylvania..the big sealed beam headlamp manufactures at the time.
Then I got bold and installed the illegal euro rear lenses on my 911...some federal law stated you could only have red lens on the rear of any automotive vehicle...it may be still be the law. Don't care..and "rear fog lamps" were illegal here in the USA too..yep..I had that on my car too.
Now realizing that I was immune from federal arrest and prosecution..I went wild and installed a device that illuminated the rear turn signals brightly with the activated brake light on my BMW R75/5 motorcycle..and at the same time..kept the rear turn signals softly illuminated when the headlamp was on too. I don't recall..but I'm sure they flashed a few times too, when you applied the brakes. It worked well..never had a problem being hit in 100k+ miles of riding..thank God!
Most recently..after my wife was rear ended by a texting driver (he broke the anti-texting law too..but was not cited for texting while driving..only following too close)..I did installed one of those flashing third brake light modules from superbrightleds.com on her DD Audi. Works very well..4 fast flashes..4 slow flashes..then steady ON..
It works well on tail-gating drivers..lightly touch the brakes and they move back..confused..maybe..but it got their attention.
My point being if you know something makes your driving safer and increases you odds of survival..do it..superior headlamps..tail-lamps..rear fog lamps..flashing brake lamps whatever..try it.
The Federal laws and whether something is illegal or not ...don't get me started.
In 40 years I have not ever had a legal automotive/motorcycle lighting problem or citation. Feds/State/Local cops don't care.
You make a great point. The NHTSA also sees promise in pulsating brake lamps (when engineered correctly). Here is an evaluation study by the NHTSA that sees potential for "enhanced brake lights" when flashed at 5Hz.
The benefit of consistent regulations is consistent implementation, and I believe that's a big part of roadway safety. If pulsating brake lamps are engineered as original equipment in the future, I'd look for other requirements to be met as well, to avoid the situation where a driver is confused about the message being given. Is that flashing lamp a hazard light, a turn signal, a stop signal, etc? The main problem with illegal products is not necessarily the fact that they're illegal...it's the fact that there is not a consistent implementation and you can get flasher modules that operate in 10 or 100 different combinations of flashing. A driver who is 100% mentally fit may be able to accurately understand the message. But we all know that drivers are not always 100% "on task", and varying messages send varying signals, and this certainly has the potential to reduce roadway safety, rather than to improve it.
I can't say that we know something like this makes our driving safer. I don't feel that it does, because of the inconsistent ways that these modules operate. Additionally, you have the very real problem of inexpensive off-shore production of these items that may leave brake lamps completely non-functional if the modulator fails. That's a lose-lose for everybody.
The benefit of consistent regulations is consistent implementation, and I believe that's a big part of roadway safety. If pulsating brake lamps are engineered as original equipment in the future, I'd look for other requirements to be met as well, to avoid the situation where a driver is confused about the message being given. Is that flashing lamp a hazard light, a turn signal, a stop signal, etc? The main problem with illegal products is not necessarily the fact that they're illegal...it's the fact that there is not a consistent implementation and you can get flasher modules that operate in 10 or 100 different combinations of flashing. A driver who is 100% mentally fit may be able to accurately understand the message. But we all know that drivers are not always 100% "on task", and varying messages send varying signals, and this certainly has the potential to reduce roadway safety, rather than to improve it.
I can't say that we know something like this makes our driving safer. I don't feel that it does, because of the inconsistent ways that these modules operate. Additionally, you have the very real problem of inexpensive off-shore production of these items that may leave brake lamps completely non-functional if the modulator fails. That's a lose-lose for everybody.
It may also be well worth considering if flashing brake lights do any favors to those with migraines or eplilepsy (which are somewhat related in a way.) Getting some innocent party "out of sorts" is not going to improve their driving. Get the non-innocent distracted drivers to grow up and take responsibility for their actions on the road.
Looking at it from a different direction, it's all about risk management. We're trying to trade additional risk in one area for a reduction of risk in another. OEM lighting (the hardware, the wiring, etc) is generally very durable in terms of connection integrity, corrosion protection, etc. We increase risk of failure here by introducing aftermarket products that don't undergo OES testing.
The hope and intent, the anticipated trade-off, is obviously to reduce risk on the back end...literally...to reduce the risk of being rear-ended. Studies do show that in some situations (certain flash rates, certain lamp intensities), our risk is reduced. In other situations, our risk is not reduced. We'd certainly want to be in the situation where any increased risk of hardware failure is mitigated by reduced risk of an accident. We'd NOT want to be in the situation where we've assumed additional risk of hardware failure and haven't actually reduced our risk of a crash.
Enter well-studied and consistent regulations. I'm as anti-government as any guy out there, and who promulgates the lighting standards actually makes no difference to me...whether that's a federal government or a consortium of various agencies and companies...or whomever. That doesn't really matter to me. What I'm interested in knowing, through study under controlled conditions, is where a change to the equipment DOES reduce my risk of being in a crash. There is little benefit in making a particular change (say, flashing the lamps at a certain frequency or intensity) if it's not going to reduce our crash risk, because it will increase our equipment failure risk. And an equipment failure obviously increases our crash risk, which is the opposite of the original intent. So in the end, are we ahead of where we were?
I'm not against the principle of modulated stop lamps. But without consistent guidance on how those can effectively be implemented, I believe we may not be managing our risk as well as we could be.
The hope and intent, the anticipated trade-off, is obviously to reduce risk on the back end...literally...to reduce the risk of being rear-ended. Studies do show that in some situations (certain flash rates, certain lamp intensities), our risk is reduced. In other situations, our risk is not reduced. We'd certainly want to be in the situation where any increased risk of hardware failure is mitigated by reduced risk of an accident. We'd NOT want to be in the situation where we've assumed additional risk of hardware failure and haven't actually reduced our risk of a crash.
Enter well-studied and consistent regulations. I'm as anti-government as any guy out there, and who promulgates the lighting standards actually makes no difference to me...whether that's a federal government or a consortium of various agencies and companies...or whomever. That doesn't really matter to me. What I'm interested in knowing, through study under controlled conditions, is where a change to the equipment DOES reduce my risk of being in a crash. There is little benefit in making a particular change (say, flashing the lamps at a certain frequency or intensity) if it's not going to reduce our crash risk, because it will increase our equipment failure risk. And an equipment failure obviously increases our crash risk, which is the opposite of the original intent. So in the end, are we ahead of where we were?
I'm not against the principle of modulated stop lamps. But without consistent guidance on how those can effectively be implemented, I believe we may not be managing our risk as well as we could be.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Looking at it from a different direction, it's all about risk management. We're trying to trade additional risk in one area for a reduction of risk in another. OEM lighting (the hardware, the wiring, etc) is generally very durable in terms of connection integrity, corrosion protection, etc. We increase risk of failure here by introducing aftermarket products that don't undergo OES testing.
The hope and intent, the anticipated trade-off, is obviously to reduce risk on the back end...literally...to reduce the risk of being rear-ended. Studies do show that in some situations (certain flash rates, certain lamp intensities), our risk is reduced. In other situations, our risk is not reduced. We'd certainly want to be in the situation where any increased risk of hardware failure is mitigated by reduced risk of an accident. We'd NOT want to be in the situation where we've assumed additional risk of hardware failure and haven't actually reduced our risk of a crash.
Enter well-studied and consistent regulations. I'm as anti-government as any guy out there, and who promulgates the lighting standards actually makes no difference to me...whether that's a federal government or a consortium of various agencies and companies...or whomever. That doesn't really matter to me. What I'm interested in knowing, through study under controlled conditions, is where a change to the equipment DOES reduce my risk of being in a crash. There is little benefit in making a particular change (say, flashing the lamps at a certain frequency or intensity) if it's not going to reduce our crash risk, because it will increase our equipment failure risk. And an equipment failure obviously increases our crash risk, which is the opposite of the original intent. So in the end, are we ahead of where we were?
I'm not against the principle of modulated stop lamps. But without consistent guidance on how those can effectively be implemented, I believe we may not be managing our risk as well as we could be.
Exceedingly well-stated. Sometimes you can know that there's a better solution than the law prescribes, but it doesn't mean that jumping the gun and implementing a non-standardized solution is a good idea. Better to work for an improved standard. Vehicle lighting is not just a convenience or for aesthetics. Its a means of communication, and you WANT your car's lights to speak the same language as everyone else's. The last thing you want to do is make another driver either react incorrectly, or have to pause to consciously decide what your lights were saying. Milliseconds matter.
Looking at it from a different direction, it's all about risk management. We're trying to trade additional risk in one area for a reduction of risk in another. OEM lighting (the hardware, the wiring, etc) is generally very durable in terms of connection integrity, corrosion protection, etc. We increase risk of failure here by introducing aftermarket products that don't undergo OES testing.
The hope and intent, the anticipated trade-off, is obviously to reduce risk on the back end...literally...to reduce the risk of being rear-ended. Studies do show that in some situations (certain flash rates, certain lamp intensities), our risk is reduced. In other situations, our risk is not reduced. We'd certainly want to be in the situation where any increased risk of hardware failure is mitigated by reduced risk of an accident. We'd NOT want to be in the situation where we've assumed additional risk of hardware failure and haven't actually reduced our risk of a crash.
Enter well-studied and consistent regulations. I'm as anti-government as any guy out there, and who promulgates the lighting standards actually makes no difference to me...whether that's a federal government or a consortium of various agencies and companies...or whomever. That doesn't really matter to me. What I'm interested in knowing, through study under controlled conditions, is where a change to the equipment DOES reduce my risk of being in a crash. There is little benefit in making a particular change (say, flashing the lamps at a certain frequency or intensity) if it's not going to reduce our crash risk, because it will increase our equipment failure risk. And an equipment failure obviously increases our crash risk, which is the opposite of the original intent. So in the end, are we ahead of where we were?
I'm not against the principle of modulated stop lamps. But without consistent guidance on how those can effectively be implemented, I believe we may not be managing our risk as well as we could be.
Exceedingly well-stated. Sometimes you can know that there's a better solution than the law prescribes, but it doesn't mean that jumping the gun and implementing a non-standardized solution is a good idea. Better to work for an improved standard. Vehicle lighting is not just a convenience or for aesthetics. Its a means of communication, and you WANT your car's lights to speak the same language as everyone else's. The last thing you want to do is make another driver either react incorrectly, or have to pause to consciously decide what your lights were saying. Milliseconds matter.
We run pulsed CHMSL on the trucks at work. Same with out rear turn signals... They pulse a couple times then stay solid.
Your rear turn signals pulse a few times then stay solid??
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Your rear turn signals pulse a few times then stay solid??
I suppose that part was rather confusing. The rear signals do 3-4 quick flashes followed by a pause and then flash again. They are LEDs.
Your rear turn signals pulse a few times then stay solid??
I suppose that part was rather confusing. The rear signals do 3-4 quick flashes followed by a pause and then flash again. They are LEDs.
I have a flasher device like this installed on both mine and my wife's car's 3rd brake lights. Where I live distracted inattentive drivers are epidemic and the number of rear end collisions are astronomical! I don't really care if it is "technically" illegal, I honestly believe that having this installed on my cars has prevented them from being run-into.
The device that I use does 4 very fast flashes within 1 second and on the 5th flash it comes on steady and stays on steady. Subsequent brake applications within 7 seconds do not flash the light, it just comes on steady.
Contrary to what they advertise, this would only work properly on LED 3rd brake lights because the flashes are so fast that it would be ineffective with incandescent bulbs. The way that the circuit is designed, the failure mode would be that the light would come on steady and not flash.
http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/...CFU4R7AoddTQASA
The device that I use does 4 very fast flashes within 1 second and on the 5th flash it comes on steady and stays on steady. Subsequent brake applications within 7 seconds do not flash the light, it just comes on steady.
Contrary to what they advertise, this would only work properly on LED 3rd brake lights because the flashes are so fast that it would be ineffective with incandescent bulbs. The way that the circuit is designed, the failure mode would be that the light would come on steady and not flash.
http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/...CFU4R7AoddTQASA
Last edited:
You have no priviledge to install non-standard signal lighting on a vehicle operated on public roads in this country. You are violating the applicable CFR.
In the event of any accident, the responsible party could assert that your installation of non-standard signal lighting is a mitigating factor.
At the least, the driver of the vehicle with this modification should and probably would be cited for the equipment violation.
Your insurer as well as their's might not be amused, understanding or accepting of the modification you made in violation of the applicable CFR.
Get the picture?
Signal lighting is standardized with good reason.
In the event of any accident, the responsible party could assert that your installation of non-standard signal lighting is a mitigating factor.
At the least, the driver of the vehicle with this modification should and probably would be cited for the equipment violation.
Your insurer as well as their's might not be amused, understanding or accepting of the modification you made in violation of the applicable CFR.
Get the picture?
Signal lighting is standardized with good reason.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You have no priviledge to install non-standard signal lighting on a vehicle operated on public roads in this country. You are violating the applicable CFR.
In the event of any accident, the responsible party could assert that your installation of non-standard signal lighting is a mitigating factor.
At the least, the driver of the vehicle with this modification should and probably would be cited for the equipment violation.
Your insurer as well as their's might not be amused, understanding or accepting of the modification you made in violation of the applicable CFR.
Get the picture?
Signal lighting is standardized with good reason.
After having been hit from behind in 2 vehicles and dealing with the aftermath, anything that can help to prevent this from happening again is something that I'm going to do. I don't care if it is illegal. I would much rather deal with a possible citation then the aftermath of a crash. My business is two doors down from the county court house. I have had law enforcement officers from all of the government entities driving behind me on MANY occasions and I have not as yet been stopped for having this on my car. I also haven't had anyone run into my rear end since I installed it.
Remember, this is the 3rd brake light we are talking about here, not the main brake lights which function normally. In Texas we don't even have to have a functioning 3rd brake light to pass an annual state safety inspection.
IMHO this is one case where the reward is higher than the risk.
You have no priviledge to install non-standard signal lighting on a vehicle operated on public roads in this country. You are violating the applicable CFR.
In the event of any accident, the responsible party could assert that your installation of non-standard signal lighting is a mitigating factor.
At the least, the driver of the vehicle with this modification should and probably would be cited for the equipment violation.
Your insurer as well as their's might not be amused, understanding or accepting of the modification you made in violation of the applicable CFR.
Get the picture?
Signal lighting is standardized with good reason.
After having been hit from behind in 2 vehicles and dealing with the aftermath, anything that can help to prevent this from happening again is something that I'm going to do. I don't care if it is illegal. I would much rather deal with a possible citation then the aftermath of a crash. My business is two doors down from the county court house. I have had law enforcement officers from all of the government entities driving behind me on MANY occasions and I have not as yet been stopped for having this on my car. I also haven't had anyone run into my rear end since I installed it.
Remember, this is the 3rd brake light we are talking about here, not the main brake lights which function normally. In Texas we don't even have to have a functioning 3rd brake light to pass an annual state safety inspection.
IMHO this is one case where the reward is higher than the risk.
Last edited:
I suspect that most rear end collisions are the result of following traffic not allowing enough space between the car ahead of them and their car for the speed driven.
IOW, tailgating.
No flashy thing will help with that.
We've had two cars hit in the rear while stopped, one in the early 'nineties and one in 2003.
Hasn't happened since, even though I haven't installed a flashy thing on any of our cars.
IOW, tailgating.
No flashy thing will help with that.
We've had two cars hit in the rear while stopped, one in the early 'nineties and one in 2003.
Hasn't happened since, even though I haven't installed a flashy thing on any of our cars.
the company I work for has installed round red LED flashing brake lights in their multiple pick ups. It appears that they have cut a round hole in the center of some pick ups which makes it a hard install, but likely fully legal - and used in multiple states.
Some luxury car manufacturers offer an optional adaptive brake light system that flashes the brake and tail lights under sudden extreme braking as a warning to trailing motorists. This fact dispels the myth that flashing brake lights are illegal. Maybe they were in the past, but if they were currently illegal the car manufacturers wouldn't be offering them in their new cars.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wag123
Some luxury car manufacturers offer an optional adaptive brake light system that flashes the brake and tail lights under sudden extreme braking as a warning to trailing motorists. This fact dispels the myth that flashing brake lights are illegal. Maybe they were in the past, but if they were currently illegal the car manufacturers wouldn't be offering them in their new cars.
Cite an example please.
I bet they vary in intensity, without completely doing dark in between pulses as these aftermarket products do. It is, in fact, not a myth that a "flashing" lamp goes against federal law. It is spelled out very clearly in FMVSS 108 posted to this thread earlier. There are ways to work around this, and varying the intensity of the lamp without actually flashing it "on and off" can be one way.
Some luxury car manufacturers offer an optional adaptive brake light system that flashes the brake and tail lights under sudden extreme braking as a warning to trailing motorists. This fact dispels the myth that flashing brake lights are illegal. Maybe they were in the past, but if they were currently illegal the car manufacturers wouldn't be offering them in their new cars.
Cite an example please.
I bet they vary in intensity, without completely doing dark in between pulses as these aftermarket products do. It is, in fact, not a myth that a "flashing" lamp goes against federal law. It is spelled out very clearly in FMVSS 108 posted to this thread earlier. There are ways to work around this, and varying the intensity of the lamp without actually flashing it "on and off" can be one way.
- Status
Similar threads
