In one of his earlier posts
Bill had questioned about the yellow light being legal in other states. I don't get the time to offer input on the forum every day, but I do try to help a fellow member here when I do have knowledge to share...as seldom as that may occur
You made some very good points and I agree, many times it's an improper or less than ethical attempt to enforce a law. A great example about tinted windows too. My father in law (ret. NYPD) now lives in Florida and has dark tinted glass on all but the windshield, legal in FL. When he comes up to visit here in NJ not legal forward of rear door. He's ok under Touring Priveleges but that's not to say a NJ LEO wouldn't issue anyway. Irony, if you see a new NJSP Troop car that has markings that it is assigned to the Homeland Security Section and you'd see that all the side glass is dark tinted, in violation of NJ law !
Every State has unique laws dealing with motor vehicle equipment, not just California. In fact New Jersey's motor vehicle laws are often drafted to mirror a law in California. This may seem strange but NJ Law Enforement has been aware for years about the pattern of NJ often following CA in mv law.
The "Touring Priveleges" existed since before I was trained in the academy more than 30 years ago and is by recepricol agreement between the states to avoid visitors touring through a State being vicitimized when equipment on their vehicle that is perfectly lawful in their home state is not lawful in a State they are passing through. Like I said, this does not mean an "under informed " LEO wouldn't issue a summons, it just means he should not and the defendant would have a good legal position to contest the summons in court. I guess some States may not even honor this agreement, hell, until a few years ago, NJ didn't have a reciprocal agreement on license points with one of the fifty States. Guess which one ? Pennsylvania, the state right next door !
Believe me, It's not just the general public that thinks some summones are improperly issued. LEO's, current and retired are very well aware of enforement actions that were taken that were miss guided based upon improper perceptions of laws. That's where good screening in the hiring process, good & dedicated instructors, a competent supervisor and a adequate review process can all help. BUT it still all boils down to the LEO keeping himself/herself up to speed and properly informed. AND innocent people that have been improperly cited need to use proper channels to bring these improper enforcemnt actions to the attention of those in positions of authority.
An example: I was an active fire line officer (Lt. then Capt.) of a Volunteer Fire Dept. for many years. I had the NJ required blue light permit and had a blue light, designating my emergency response and right of way when the light was activated. I went on a vacation to Vermont and a Vt. police officer stopped me for having a blue light on my car. In NJ at that time only used blue lights for Vol fire/ems personal vehicles (NJ DMV permit required) and used red lights on fully authorized emer. vehicles like pumpers, police, ambulances, etc. In Vt. they used blue lights for police and red lights for personal vehicles of Vol. responders. He told me he was going to issue a summons. I did not argue with him but I did show him my NJ permit and did explain that I was totally lawful in my home state. I also told him that I fully understood that I had no chance I'd be responding to a fire from VT. and that if I activated my blue light in Vt. it would be percieved as a police vehicle and I could be subject to arrest for impersonating a police officer. But as long as I did not improperly activate that light I was within my right to keep the blue light mounted but un lit. If he insisted, I would take out my tools and remove the light but if he issued a summons, I would contest it. He checked with his Sgt. and was told as long as I had the NJ required permit I was ok....covered under "Touring Priveleges".
When I spoke of the 80/100w bulbs, they DO melt things on some models and YES the ST1300 is included in the melt down catagory. HOWEVER, the ST1100, for what ever design reasons, can use them with no ill effects. ANYTHING higher wattage than the 80/100w will melt stuff on the ST1100's too!! Does that answer you question better. Too bad I can't locate the source of my info. Thought it was Daniel Sterns site but that part of his site was down last time I looked and I couldn't verify my findings except to say, 5000 miles later, I've not had any problems with the 80/100w in my ST1100 anywhere in my electrical system.
My source did state that the 80/100w bulbs were definitely too much for the ST1300 headlamp housing!!!
