Laws regarding reversing lights?

[eggsalad]

I was sort of under the impression that vehicles were only allowed to display white lights to the rear when reversing, or at the very least when reverse gear was selected.

Lately it seems that every GM product illuminates the reversing lights when the car is unlocked with the remote, or something along those lines. It makes for much confusion in the parking lot when I'm not sure if a vehicle is about to back out of a space, or if the operator has simply unlocked the car via remote.

I know there are folks here who know the laws much better than I do, so I hope someone can provide illumination (did I just do that?) on this topic.

thank you,

eggsalad

 

[SemiMan]

Except road laws do not apply in a parking lot.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[dc38]

I was sort of under the impression that vehicles were only allowed to display white lights to the rear when reversing, or at the very least when reverse gear was selected.

Lately it seems that every GM product illuminates the reversing lights when the car is unlocked with the remote, or something along those lines. It makes for much confusion in the parking lot when I'm not sure if a vehicle is about to back out of a space, or if the operator has simply unlocked the car via remote.

I know there are folks here who know the laws much better than I do, so I hope someone can provide illumination (did I just do that?) on this topic.

thank you,

eggsalad

Purely personal opinion here...maybe having the lights turn on in that way serves as a "find me?" Maybe there are also too many people who just jump in their cars and drive off without checking their mirrors, and the lights alert other drivers that the subject vehicle is about to do something? I believe the best way to find out would be to call the company of whichever cars you may be curious about

 

[dc38]

Some desperate police don't seem to think so lol...

 

[-Virgil-]

It's not illegal for the reversing lamps to illuminate as you describe (when the car is remotely unlocked, when the alarm is going off, etc).

 

[eggsalad]

It's not illegal for the reversing lamps to illuminate as you describe (when the car is remotely unlocked, when the alarm is going off, etc).

Thanks, spotlight guy. I figured someone here would know.

 

[dave_b]

eggsalad are you the same eggsalad at ttac?

 

[eggsalad]

I am, Dave B. I can't think there are a whole ton of car nuts calling themselves "eggsalad"! LOL

 

[dave_b]

over there i am davefromcalgary. this forum is an amazing resource for all things automotive lighting/headlight related. Scheinwerfermann is an industry expert and really know his stuff, and a number of others such as Alaric Darconville, SemiMan, Hamilton Felix, and anapplesnail are really very knowledgeable as well. Enjoy this awesome community!

 

[hokiefyd]

I have to agree with the OP; the behavior of these GM vehicles is incredibly confusing. I have VERY often stopped my car in the parking lane to let an unoccupied, non-running GM vehicle back up. This happens most often with "angled" parking spaces and one-way lanes, where the reverse lamps are most conspicuous. I understand the logic; GM likely wants to illuminate the area around the vehicle for safety. But it's incredibly confusing to other drivers in parking lots.

 

[N8N]

It's not the first time GM has introduces a "safety" feature that really didn't make things any better. I'm still bitter about the high beam DRLs.

I also question the legality of Ford's sequential turn signals, although they really don't bother me, I'm surprised they got away with those.

 

[dave_b]

I have to agree with the OP; the behavior of these GM vehicles is incredibly confusing. I have VERY often stopped my car in the parking lane to let an unoccupied, non-running GM vehicle back up. This happens most often with "angled" parking spaces and one-way lanes, where the reverse lamps are most conspicuous. I understand the logic; GM likely wants to illuminate the area around the vehicle for safety. But it's incredibly confusing to other drivers in parking lots.

I have done this many times myself. It may not be illegal, but it is annoying as heck.

 

[-Virgil-]

It's not the first time GM has introduces a "safety" feature that really didn't make things any better. I'm still bitter about the high beam DRLs.

The devil's in the details! DRLs are a good idea, but high beams are a bad implementation of DRLs.

I also question the legality of Ford's sequential turn signals, although they really don't bother me, I'm surprised they got away with those.

I finally got a solid answer as to how they managed to justify those: the inner lamp is, legally, the turn signal. It complies in full with all applicable provisions of FMVSS 108. The other two (middle, outer) are auxiliary, not a part of the vehicle's lighting package for compliance with the regulation. Ford's belief is that these two auxiliary lights do not hinder the function of the mandatory light, and since that is the extent to which auxiliary lights are Federally regulated, Ford believes they are in the clear. NHTSA does not seem inclined to challenge Ford's position, even though it is NHTSA's interpretation of their own standard that all turn signal lamps must operate in simultaneous phase. I don't hold a very high regard for this kind of vaguely defined and arbitrarily enforced regulation, but I'm not in charge.

 

[Nicola]

...Lately it seems that every GM product illuminates the reversing lights when the car is unlocked with the remote, or something along those lines. It makes for much confusion in the parking lot ...

Unfortunately GM owned SAAB, so I confirm my NG9-5 do that.

I find it useful and never thought it could be a confusing feature to somebody, but you are right, in some case it could be.

About law, I cannot see how it could be considered not legal, being every car model made street legal to a specific market before it can be sold in that market.

(...or maybe I didn't understand your question?)

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Lately it seems that every GM product illuminates the reversing lights when the car is unlocked with the remote, or something along those lines. It makes for much confusion in the parking lot when I'm not sure if a vehicle is about to back out of a space, or if the operator has simply unlocked the car via remote.

I typically also use a turn signal while backing just to be sure I'm seen or my intent is interpreted, but I know what you mean. Usually, though, unless the parking brake is on, or the clutch is in, that car is going to move when shifted to reverse, but you still have to look at the whole situation before acting.

 

[Optical Inferno]

Just a thought, but if the vehicle were reversing wouldn't the tail lights also be illuminated? Obviously the brake light would be illuminated if it were engaged, but what about the taillight. Isn't the red tail light engaged when in reverse or is it just at night or while the vehicles lights are engaged?

I know my Grand-Am flashes the amber signal lights when I lock/unlock the vehicle. Never thought to check the reverse light. I'll have to have a look.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Just a thought, but if the vehicle were reversing wouldn't the tail lights also be illuminated

No.

Obviously the brake light would be illuminated if it were engaged, but what about the taillight.

Not the tail lamp.

Isn't the red tail light engaged when in reverse or is it just at night or while the vehicles lights are engaged?

The tail lamps only light when the parking lamps or headlamps are on. They function independently of the reverse lamps.

 

[N8N]

I finally got a solid answer as to how they (Ford) managed to justify those (sequential turn signals): the inner lamp is, legally, the turn signal. It complies in full with all applicable provisions of FMVSS 108. The other two (middle, outer) are auxiliary, not a part of the vehicle's lighting package for compliance with the regulation. Ford's belief is that these two auxiliary lights do not hinder the function of the mandatory light, and since that is the extent to which auxiliary lights are Federally regulated, Ford believes they are in the clear. NHTSA does not seem inclined to challenge Ford's position, even though it is NHTSA's interpretation of their own standard that all turn signal lamps must operate in simultaneous phase. I don't hold a very high regard for this kind of vaguely defined and arbitrarily enforced regulation, but I'm not in charge.

So I know that the current Mustang was supposed to be officially sold in Europe - however my curiosity about what the taillights would look like was not satisfied by a quick web search... I guess it is not out yet? I guess they will have to include an amber segment, and possibly reconfigure the whole taillight assembly (outside to in, stop -> turn -> rear fog?)

 

[-Virgil-]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the two reversing lamps is repurposed as a turn signal (amber bulb), the inboard stop light is repurposed as a rear fog, and only the outboard stop light functions as such. At least that's what I recall from the export Mustang lights I saw two or three years ago. That might have been a Japanese-spec lamp I saw, though; I don't recall. In any event, yes, the rear turn signal would have to be amber and the sequential thing would not be allowed.

UPDATE looks like the newest 2013 Mustang has actual purpose-built export rear lamps; see here. I think these are similar to the ones I remembered. And some other export (or export-conversion) Mustang rear lamps are pictured here, here, and here (two different variants).

Frankly, I don't see what's so terribly objectionable about these that they couldn't have been used in the US market, though some of them such as the 2013 item might not meet the US lit-area requirement.

 

[N8N]

nobody's *making* Ford do it, is the problem, and Ford seems to think that the "heritage" of the three vertical red segments is more important than safety.

It ain't just Ford though, it's everyone...