Interpretation ID: 1984-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 21, 1984 Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983, regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion; in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.

I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.

We note that you have added two further functions since last writing us about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.

In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose to offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the "approval" or "disapproval" of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government "approves" or "disapproves" aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to "approve" or "disapprove." We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304 (213) 347-2695

December 15, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel, Frank Berndt, Vincent Taylor

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your response letter dated November 22nd and my subsequent phone conversation to Mr. Taylor. Both sets of communications have indicated a lack of approval but no legal disapproval of my product. The purpose of this letter is to achieve approval from your department.

In response to the letter or Mr. Berndt, I do not believe that there is any potential confusion between my "emergency flasher" indication and "brake" indication since they are presently totally different in current usage. One of these is normally used for a stopped vehicle while the other is used to indicate that a vehicle is stopping. In either case the response of the other driver is to stay clear of the indicating vehicle, thus the desired response is in all cases preserved. If this still concerns you and this is the only obstacle to approval then the emergency response can be changed to a flashing CAUTION indication.

In response to my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor, your concern was solely related to the "brake" indication in that the moving arrows might cause a confusion to other drivers. I strongly disagree with this opinion as my road tests confirm. The movement of the arrows cause the operator of other vehicles to be able to respond at least as quickly as with just the normal brake indications. I do expect that an improvement does exist because the physiology of the human mind is such that a driver can respond to movement very quickly due to origins of the human species. The normal brake indication depends upon this by a causing an intensity transition, but this can be ineffective due to the wide range of brightnesses of brake lights found on automobiles today which can cause a confusion if the operator is distracted during night-time operation. You stated that your objections would not exist if the arrows were not moving. I agreed that a very slow movement would be ineffective and distracting. The difference between our positions is just the speed of movement, infinity being your position, my position being approximately 3/4 second to complete the arrow or approximately the same speed of a blinker I think further consideration would show that my proposal is in no way detrimental and may actually be a safety feature (the speed may be further increased if it will allow me to obtain an approval).

Further functions have been added to reflect a need of at least my local police department. These needs are that emergency flashers only indicate a problem but not the type of attention needed. Thus I have added two indications for this identification:

BREAKDOWN ROAD SERVICE REQUEST

POLICE HELP POLICE AID REQUEST

In conclusion, it appears that active disapproval is not forthcoming from your department but I still would appreciate obtaining at least a passive approval. Your comments would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell