Illegal to have only one tail light in NC?

History

History

Well-known member
Pulled into grocery store parking lot after dark this evening and a city police officer pulled in behind me to say, “ it is illegal to only have one tail light in NC”. He quoted G.S 20-129. I thought you were legal with original equipment?

He was nice enough and said he was just letting me know. I did say I thought I was legal but would do some digging and if I was correct I’d let him know how, why. What say you fellows?
 
History said:
Pulled into grocery store parking lot after dark this evening and a city police officer pulled in behind me to say, “ it is illegal to only have one tail light in NC”. He quoted G.S 20-129. I thought you were legal with original equipment?

He was nice enough and said he was just letting me know. I did say I thought I was legal but would do some digging and if I was correct I’d let him know how, why. What say you fellows?
Click to expand...
Look up your statutes. Many states preface the equipment requirements with "for vehicles constructed after ...". I looked up North Carolina General Statute 20-129. I'm not an attorney so this isn't an "opinion", but I am a former California police officer. At first glance, and without considering any legal precedent that may be present, it appears that the officer may be correct. With reference to the headlight and taillight requirements, I don't see any distinction based upon manufacture date. There is a reference to "...vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1970..." but that appears to only apply to stoplights.

NK, you have to know North Carolina laws better than me, any comments?

Having said that, most Model A folks I know will tell you that one of the most effective "upgrades" you can make to your Model A is the addition of the second tail and stop light, as well as seat belts and turn signals. Only reason I can see to not do that is if you're trying to hold to a fine points standard. Even the Restorer's Class judging recognizes safety upgrades and does not penalize.
 
Last edited:
A comment from a very different jurisdiction just about as far way from you as is possible.: If the statutes are silent on a date when they take effect, then they are not retrospective, at least they are not here.
Might be worth considering.
 
Synchro909 said:
A comment from a very different jurisdiction just about as far way from you as is possible.: If the statutes are silent on a date when they take effect, then they are not retrospective, at least they are not here.
Might be worth considering.
Click to expand...
That certainly would be logical, but who equates "logical" with Vehicle Code?

There is some language in the statute about a phase-in period from October 1, 1990 to December 31, 1991. There are greater minds than mine who do this stuff for a living!
 
Since CA was brought up we only need one. I also looked this up because a guy in CA asked about tail lights in the Restorer and he was under the impression he needed 2.

California Code, Vehicle Code - VEH § 24600



(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.

(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).


Not the first time this has come up in NC - I can only imagine the speed traps these guys run if they are looking for 2 lights on Model As. https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nc-law-only-requires-one-working-taillight/275-213230024
 
This is bunk. NCGS 20-129 states, "Every motor vehicle... shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle. One rear lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed that the number plate carried on the rear of such vehicle shall under like conditions be illuminated by a white light as to be read from a distance of 50 feet to the rear of such vehicle."

If the car came with one rear light, you can drive with one rear light.

Having said that, it is logically less safe to drive with one light, because approaching drivers can't gauge the distance to you. I have extra lights that I tack onto the back with magnets at night. But you aren't legally required to.
 
alexiskai said:
This is bunk. NCGS 20-129 states, "Every motor vehicle... shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle. One rear lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed that the number plate carried on the rear of such vehicle shall under like conditions be illuminated by a white light as to be read from a distance of 50 feet to the rear of such vehicle."

If the car came with one rear light, you can drive with one rear light.

Having said that, it is logically less safe to drive with one light, because approaching drivers can't gauge the distance to you. I have extra lights that I tack onto the back with magnets at night. But you aren't legally required to.
Click to expand...
I missed that part in subsection (d). Certainly makes sense. Good thing I’m not an attorney.
 
The officer did let me take a photo of the statute listed on his computer, here is that photo and it is worded differently than what’s posted, at least this paragraph. With that said, I have stop lamp)s and it works,,,. Im pretty sure this fellow (officer) has the wrong understanding of this.

I believe he sees the word lampS used several times instead of lamp and thinks that is (S) the deciding factor, I could be wrong but seems reasonable to me as to why he thinks this.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2401.jpg
    IMG_2401.jpg
    37.1 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:
If you get sited for an infraction for just one tail light, take it to court. Police officers are just people and they can make mistakes. I got stopped in California in 1970 for having an amber stop light on my AA truck. The judge threw it out. I think the officer was just trying to get my ratty looking AA truck off the road. They also sited me for no mud flaps, which I added.

But, as others have said, two tail lights with bright stop lights and turn signals are safer. I have the third stop light in my rear window. If you drive you Model A on the highway it is better to be safe.
 
I’am not an attorney ! Please take me to court ! Very win able case ! When I first got my A as a teenager went to court for not displaying a tag/license , judge thru out the charges and told the state trooper “ DO NOT write anymore tickets inside the city limits “ , judges are very powerful !!!

If you want to drive with only one tail/ brake light that’s your discretion !
 
History said:
The officer did let me take a photo of the statute listed on his computer, here is that photo and it is worded differently than what’s posted, at least this paragraph. With that said, I have stop lamp)s and it works,,,. Im pretty sure this fellow (officer) has the wrong understanding of this.

I believe he sees the word lampS used several times instead of lamp and thinks that is (S) the deciding factor, I could be wrong but seems reasonable to me as to why he thinks this.
Click to expand...


That photo is of the AI summary of the statute, not the statute itself.
 
nkaminar said:
If you get sited for an infraction for just one tail light, take it to court. Police officers are just people and they can make mistakes. I got stopped in California in 1970 for having an amber stop light on my AA truck. The judge threw it out. I think the officer was just trying to get my ratty looking AA truck off the road. They also sited me for no mud flaps, which I added.
Click to expand...
About the same time I got a ticket in Pasadena CA for the same thing. I had the European tail light lenses on my VW with the amber turn/brake light. When I got home I read the statute and it had a year newer than my primer spotted 1959 Bug. I plead not guilty requiring the cop to show up in court. The judge dismissed it and chastised the cop for not fully reading the section. I avoided Pasadena in that car until I finished the paint job.......
 
NH appears to follow a "60 Year or older" exemption policy on inspections.

Inspections that would likely be "safety inspection" and would probably include the full complement of modern lighting/features.

So it appears if you drive in the "Antique" plate category, all you are required to do is have the car "as originally made." Of course Antique Plates is "occasional show, maintenance, and non commuting use." And that likely includes a "regular" car for otherwise use as part of the equation.

So no trips to Lowes in an AA truck to pick up one ton of plywood sheathing? (about 48 sheets, a stack about 2' high)

Joe K
 
The thing about no-trips-to-Lowe’s is that the low registration fees, low cost of insurance, etc. is all predicated on the assumption that you do not use it like a normal car. You are not out creating wear on state roads, merging with traffic, or doing other things that those annual fees are supposed to cover. If you are doing those things, you should register and insure it like a normal car.

FWIW, in NC the antique plate is a separate process from getting the antique vehicle property tax exemption. You can have one without the other.
 
Looking up N.H. MV laws online can be a bit of a crapshoot.They're all there,but all the revisions,changes,and addendums are not in the some place.Eventually thy get there,but it takes a while.In 2009 they passed a law that inspections were not required for pre-1949 vehicles.What was NOT in that paragraph was the revision that stated that the cutoff year was when the vehicle hit 60 years of age,starting with 1949.For years I had people telling me that the rule was pre-1949,no 60 year thing.I did find it somewhere,and printed a bunch to show people.Guys would show me the law on their phones,but it was the original as introduced version text,not including the added text that was in the final version somewhere else.It was buried in with a bunch of other revisions.As of right now inspections have been dropped in N.H. except for heavy trucks.
 
The emissions equipment and the computers for inspections are leased from the Gorden-Darby company.They're the ones raising the issue about us not complying with the clean air act,but their stake in it is their equipment rentals.Their equipment is no longer in use by the state,and if an inspection station tries to sign on there is just a rejection message on the screen.Right now it is open ended,as it may take 18 months to get the EPA hearing for a waiver.As of Thursday or Friday a judge ordered us to restore the emissions testing,but the state no longer has the equipment to do so.Plus,it looks like the state has really dug it's heels in on this,and are refusing to comply with the judges order.On top of that the state thinks it will take about a year to get operations off the ground with another company.The inspection station guys,(ex inspection stations now) are all up in the air.The date for a ruling was set for April,but it seems to have already happened.The stations were supposed to have turned in their unused stickers.They are of no use,there is no state website to print them out.Our state rep that lives near me says that for all practical purposes the inspections are gone.
 
My son just bought a new/used car - and he needed to do the title/registration/inspection.

According to him "he got one of the last inspection stickers" that the Toyota shop had available.

"Slipped in under the wire." He says.

Although in his case I'm not sure it would have mattered. The Toyota shop DID get their inspection fee - which may have been their REAL interest in making sure he was inspected.

Joe K
 
Now the state computer that they talk to is completely down.You couldn't print a sticker now if you tried to.But,that is for the vehicle plug in deals,trucks still have to be inspected,so there must be come way to communicate to get the stickers printed.I'm not aware if they have gone back to hand written info for the stickers.Lots more people than I thought would have are asking about how they will tell if their cars are safe.The term being used is,wellness check.You can pay a mechanic to look over your car and give you a list of what is wrong.I went out to supper Saterday night with a garage owner,he was very surprised at the number of regular cousomers that normally would have been in for inspections,that are asking him to just look at the cars.
 
Connecticut Grandfathered in. OK as built!

Obviously no test needed for emissions.

I have never had a problem in New York either. Just made sure car had head lights, tail light, and brake light. Never removed brake drum to check on shoes. Annual safety check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top