Noticed on mine the front turn signals also function as running lights, the rears only as turn signals. Is this normal? Thinking maybe the rear needs looking at. I'm for any lights to get others attention and like the fronts being lit. Maybe in the rear it's a legal issue having yellow running lights, dunno for sure.

Normal. Front running lights only.

Rear turn signals can be converted to running lights and even brake lights as well, but it requires a different socket, bulb, more wiring, and of course red lenses. I haven't ridden at night for a long time, so I don't care much about lights. But I wish the manufacturers would design the rear signals to be used as running lights. Many new Harley models do, and H-D sells conversion kits to convert most of their bikes to rear running lights. I rode my XT without turn signals for a couple years (not required in my state) and found that car drivers seemed to pay more attention to arm signals than lights.

Found the same thing in the Valley, Jerry, when I lived there. The wimpy turn signals on the XT were virtually invisible to automobile drivers, while an arm stuck up in the air indicating a turn did get their attention - most of them anyway..

Cycle gear sells inexpensive aftermarket lights that look exactly like OEM except they are shorter. They have 3 wire fronts that you can buy and wire the running light to the tail light running light wire.

To use the rear turn signals as running lights, you will have to have red lenses. Not legal to have either amber or white lights showing from the rear. Amber can be used as turn signals only. Harleys are the only bikes I've ever seen with rear running lights, and they have red lenses. I think that for turn signals, amber actually shows up better. Have you thought about just adding some extra red lights to the rear?