A conviction for evading a police officer was reversed where there was insufficient evidence to prove the statutory requirement that the pursuing police car was exhibiting at least one red lamp that was visible from the front of the car. The only evidence on this point came from the police officer who stated that he “activated his emergency lights with the siren.” Even though appellant’s intentional act of fleeing his police pursuers seemed abundantly clear, it would have been easy enough for the prosecutor to close the sizable evidentiary gap by questioning the officer about which lights he activated.