Actually, no, it's quite easy to determine what's allowed, required, and prohibited in Germany. It's all in the StVZO, spelled out quite explicitly. Perhaps you weren't looking in the right place.
It's not all in there because there are also European laws that apply as well. Those are way more complicated/harder to understand (for not to say incomprehensible) than the StVZO. Besides that, there are manufacturers that somehow manage to build and sell cars in Germany that have lights that are illegal: For example, Nissan sold a special version of one of their models which had high beams built into the foremost supports of the luggage carrier it had on the roof. They didn't seem to have a problem with that --- and when they can do it, anyone can, but you'll get ticket (and/or might fail inspection) if you do it.
I even contacted the DEKRA, one of the organizitions that do inspections, and they were unable to tell what exactly is allowed and what not.
After lenghty research, I finally pretty much found it out --- and, legally, installed a second pair of tail lights because there were too many idiots on the Autobahn that apparently couldn't see me driving on the right lane while they were approaching about 80--100km/h faster than I was. Fortunately, they pulled over onto the left lane and passed, but only at the last moment. With the second set of tail lights, that problem was solved.
They count it according to the applicable provisions of FMVSS 108. The Type A (165mm x 100mm rectangular) and Type C (5¾" round) sealed beam 4-lamp systems consist of [...]
Gosh, how do you know all that?
Ok, that makes sense and things easy.
If you disable the high beams in the 6054s, you no longer have headlamps compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the lights are illegal in that configuration; NM doesn't appear to have adopted FMVSS 108 requirements.
Hm, ok, another reason to leave it as it's supposed to be. The other reason is that it's more complicated to install 4 aux high beams than only two, and having 4 would be more likely to get me into trouble.
That depends on what your state has to say about "driving lamp" placement.
center max. 54 inches high ...
DRLs are easy to add; toss in one of
these.
Hm. I could wire them up like that myself. But the front turn signals are rather dim (and the sun is very bright here). They are so dim that I started thinking about installing seperate turn signals on the front or replacing both the turns and the parking lights.
If I do that, I would even have the option to switch to a "dual headlamp" setup with one low beam and one high beam as they used on older models: All it takes is to replace the parking/turn light with the "shell" that would hold the headlamp, which I might be able to find on a junkyard. (The older models had another light for parking/turn behind the grille.) But I don't know if this setup for low and high beams is any better than what I have now.
Anyway, the truck is almost 25 years old, and these combined parking lights/turn signals are plastic and not very bright anymore. The turns are only "sort of" amber --- maybe replacing the bulbs would help. They are probably painted amber, and the paint has worn off over time, and the light output has decreased, and the old plastic doesn't help that.
Sure they are. You can get them
here, for example.
That's true.
Yeah, "only" $237"!
Fog lamps are not legal (or effective) as DRLs.
ok
There are plenty of good lights that can be mounted to a vertical surface. Check with a reputable lighting consultant.
Well, I don't know of any --- and checking with one could get expensive ...
Why do you want to do this? Usually it's not productive.
It was very good on a '96 Tahoe with 9006 bulbs and crappy headlights. Maybe it usually doesn't work well, but in that case, it did.
But for the sake of reality and safety, don't overthink it or get cute with semantic games: a headlamp is a headlamp.
Yeah --- I'm merely trying to explore the possibilities and options. Thinking thinks through and good planning is half the work or more and makes things much easier when I actually start doing something. I'm not in a hurry: The light I have now is working, legal and ok for what I need it. It can still take half a year or more before I can finally decide what exactly I want to do. One day, I'll probably just happen to have the right idea. I want to do it only once, and don't worry: It'll be something simple. Having 50 lights on the front and 20 switches and 100 combinations to turn the lights on or off is totally useless and dangerous.
That's why I like the idea of using the turn signals as DRLs. It's extremely simple, it'll work automatically, it's cheap, and it'll be reliable. They'll come on with ignition, flash as needed and turn off when I turn on the headlights --- it'll only take some thought how to wire it up like that. It might pay for itself over time because it might save alternator belts and some fuel. Hm, ok, the belt might be under warranty just like the alternator ... but it'll still save time not having to change one.
headlamp:
It's designed to produce a primary low and/or a primary high beam distribution of white light,
Ok, that would be the "general/common sense" understanding. It includes aux high beams, though.
A spot lamp is a highly directional (tight beam) swivelling and tilting lamp aimable [...]
So a spot lamp is a spot lamp
Taxis seem to have them, too. I guess it makes sense because it helps them finding addresses where they need to pick someone up.
A passing lamp is an auxiliary low beam.
That's interesting ... I need something to put in place of the front license plate which isn't needed here, anyway. I could put it more than a foot lower than the low beams: "Ah, hm, what's that train doing on the highway???"
I'm sure it won't take long before I got pulled over --- but hey, it's leagl ... Bad only if there's a regulation somewhere that says you must not put it into the middle.
Yeah, looks like NM vehicle code contains conflicting language. 66-3-827 says you can hae one, and 66-3-834 says you can have two. It's very difficult to imagine 66-3-827 being enforced as written, even if 66-3-834 didn't exist.
Does 66-3-834 really say that?
66-3-834. Number of driving lamps required or permitted.
A. At all times specified in
Section 66-3-802 NMSA 1978, at least two lighted lamps shall be displayed, one on each side at the front of every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle, except when such vehicle is parked subject to the regulations governing lights on parked vehicles.
B. Whenever a motor vehicle equipped with headlamps as herein required is also equipped with any auxiliary lamp or spot lamps or any other lamp on the front thereof projecting a beam of intensity greater than three hundred candle power, not more than a total of four of any such lamps on the front of a vehicle shall be lighted at any one time when upon a highway.
This doesn't say that you are allowed to have more than one passing light. It only requires at least two lights and forbids to have more than 4 turned on at the same time. Since 66-3-827 clearly says "not to exceed one auxiliary passing lamp", I think you must not have more than one.
But you're allowed to make it look like a train ...
Sure, but...why? Instead of mounting ten poor lamps, why not just mount two or four good ones?
It's cheaper. It allows you to use different types of beams to create a good combination. I'd be pissed if I had expensive lights and they'd be damaged by road debris (you should see my windscreen ...), or if they got vandalized or stolen.
That reminds me: I need a new windscreen first. Besides it being broken, it has so many small craters that I might only blind myself if I had good high beams.
Most unmodified, properly aimed ordinary low beam headlamps will have no trouble meeting this very vaguely-written requirement. It doesn't say anything about oncoming-vehicle glare, or rain, or nonreflective clothing; the requirement is very nearly meaningless.
A hundred feet is 30 meters. 30 meters ahead it's dark. I didn't measure, but I would say so. If it's not, a traffic light can blind me enough for it to be dark 30 meters ahead.
They could go to NHTSA and say "Hey, we've found that the headlamps on the following cars don't reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet ahead, which is what our law requires." NHTSA would say "The lamps meet the Federal standard" and that would be the end of the debate.
Yeah, but I still find it interesting. It simply means that I do need better low beams.
KC's lights are all cheap 3rd-world junk. Stick to reputable brands: Hella, Bosch, Cibie are the European biggies. Much (but not all) of what they make is good. IPF has some good lamps in their line, and quite a bit of junk. Lightforce and PIAA are overpriced toys.
Hm. I'm not fond of Hella; I've had Bosh: better quality, but no better performance. I don't know Cibie, IPF or Lightforce, so that's something to look up.
