Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated during darkness, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a safe distance in advance of the vehicle, subject to the following requirements and limitations:
(a)Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, he shall use a distribution of light or composite beam so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver.
The lowermost distribution of light
specified in this article shall be deemed to avoid glare at all times regardless of road contour.
(b)Whenever the driver of a vehicle follows another vehicle within 300 feet to the rear, he shall use the lowermost distribution of light specified in this article.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case:
State v. L. Gardner, 2022 MT 3 (Mont. 2022).
State v. L. Gardner, 2022 MT 3 (Mont. 2022).
“But even a conscientious driver, desirous of following the law, would find it difficult to determine whether an oncoming vehicle on a dark, two-lane road with no visible landrnarks is 1000 feet away or 750 feet away—especially if that vehicle's brights are illuminated. 3 A1a.…”
People v. Branner, 180 Cal. App. 4th 308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “(a), 24601), and one of the headlights was misaligned so that it illuminated the ground four to five feet in front of the vehicle (Veh. Code, § 24409). When the vehicle stopped and one of its passengers got out and started urinating on the wall of an apartment building, the…”
United States v. Louangamath (9th Cir. 2024).
“See Cal. Veh. Code § 24409 (a). The district court’s reasonable suspicion finding was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.”
G. Ashley v. Michael Rey Moore (C.D. Cal. 2024).
“Ashley does not deny that he was driving with high 9 beams and tinted windows in violation of California Vehicle Code sections 24409 and 10 26708, and that his license plate light was out.”
People v. Oran CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“Code, § 21703), and failure to dim high beams (Veh. Code, § 24409, subd. (b)). Defendant asserts on appeal that, if the jury based its verdict of guilty on flashing the high beams or following too closely, then the verdict was unsupported because those actions did not cause the…”
People v. Sandoval CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“(a)— count 3); failing to use a distribution of light or composite beam so that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming driver within 500 feet (Veh. Code, § 24409, subd. (a)—count 4); driving without proof of insurance (Veh.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.