In the meantime it is standard and has been prescribed for new cars since 1998, but the way there was very entangled. It began with some vehicle holders in the early 80’s starting to install the common 3rd brake lamp in their vehicles in the USA, or trying to get self-imported US cars with 3rd brake lamp registered here. There it was always called “the’ is’ vabootn”, and the 3rd brake lamp had to be not only clamped for the US cars for registration in D, but it was also called “the’ is’ vabootn”, and the 3rd brake lamp had to be clamped for registration in D. completely removed and the spreader was allowed by a light-impermeable blank panel (how is that actually, disconnecting would have been quite sufficient ?!?) Then someone managed to get additional brake lights on the way of a dispute by several instances. But not in the form in which something else was done everywhere in the world and worked perfectly. But only in pairs left/right on the hat rack. a few years later the lawyers said “what cares about our stupid gossip from yesterday”… and they banned additional brake lights again, already installed had to be dismantled again (again only disconnecting was not enough). Again a few years later, additional brake lights were allowed again in the course of EU legal harmonisations. But not the several years before hard-won special German solution (in pairs), but only the variant with the third luminaire central, which was originally not even allowed here. The dismantled “Rentnerfunzeln” thus did not return to the hat rack, but into the ton. And shortly afterwards the 3rd brake lamp became mandatory. Precisely in the form in which their “pierients” in the early 80s they wanted to have on their vehicle. There is only one question: WHY NOT GLEICH SO??? Well, in D-Land may yes s owieso never be anything as it has proven to be elsewhere in the world. DFÜ pioneers certainly know about singing another song, keyword modem post approval.