Are tinted tail lights illegal
05-23-2011, 07:08 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,625
Are tinted tail lights illegal
BEFORE YOU SAY YES... I have heard of many people receiving fix-it tickets for this many times. But out of curiosity I contacted the DMV and asked them for myself. I was then referred to this section of the vehicle code for an answer.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24600.htm
"During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.
(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).
(c) Every vehicle or vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles, subject to subdivision (a) of Section 22406 shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps.
(d) When two taillamps are required, at least one shall be mounted at the left and one at the right side respectively at the same level.
(e) Taillamps shall be red in color and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all
distances within 1,000 feet to the rear.
(f) Taillamps on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 72 inches, except that a tow truck, in addition to being equipped with the required taillamps, may also be equipped with two taillamps which may be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than the maximum allowable vehicle height and as far forward as the rearmost portion of the driver's seat in the rearmost position. The additional taillamps on a tow truck shall be lighted whenever the headlamps are lighted.
Amended Ch. 924, Stats. 1988. Effective January 1, 1989."
under this vehicle code as long as the tinted tail lights are visible up to the 1000 feet (which is easy, only lay 2 coats of tint and at worst, get brighter lights) there seems to be nothing else to warrant this customization illegal.
so why are people getting tickets for tinted tail lights? is it because they don't challenge the police department with the DMV vehicle code and just take the cops word for it spreading this rumor that they are illegal or what?
can someone point me to the law deeming tinted tails illegal?
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24600.htm
"During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.
(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).
(c) Every vehicle or vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles, subject to subdivision (a) of Section 22406 shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps.
(d) When two taillamps are required, at least one shall be mounted at the left and one at the right side respectively at the same level.
(e) Taillamps shall be red in color and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all
distances within 1,000 feet to the rear.
(f) Taillamps on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 72 inches, except that a tow truck, in addition to being equipped with the required taillamps, may also be equipped with two taillamps which may be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than the maximum allowable vehicle height and as far forward as the rearmost portion of the driver's seat in the rearmost position. The additional taillamps on a tow truck shall be lighted whenever the headlamps are lighted.
Amended Ch. 924, Stats. 1988. Effective January 1, 1989."
under this vehicle code as long as the tinted tail lights are visible up to the 1000 feet (which is easy, only lay 2 coats of tint and at worst, get brighter lights) there seems to be nothing else to warrant this customization illegal.
so why are people getting tickets for tinted tail lights? is it because they don't challenge the police department with the DMV vehicle code and just take the cops word for it spreading this rumor that they are illegal or what?
can someone point me to the law deeming tinted tails illegal?
Last edited by twentyeggs; 06-04-2011 at 01:19 PM.
05-23-2011, 07:25 PM
#2
yes they are. sorry but i didnt read all of that. i had tinted tails and got tickets for it. so i actually asked the cop what was a legal tint for it. he said none. better to buy the led tailights
05-23-2011, 07:34 PM
#3
really depends on the cop. if your tails are so dark that you cant see the DRL tail light through, then it is too dark.
(when you have your headlights on and your tail lights are just illuminated. brakes arent being applied)
(when you have your headlights on and your tail lights are just illuminated. brakes arent being applied)
05-23-2011, 08:13 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rowland Heights, CA 91748
Posts: 464
correct me if im wrong but applying anything on it will make it not "plainly visible" as it was required by the DMV... and tinting it may not be visible (as taillights) from 1000 feet when the tails are not lit up... as taillights take different shapes...
Also, tinting the tallights may hinder the proper functions of your taillight reflectors which is also required..
here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24607.htm
and here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24608.htm
Also, tinting the tallights may hinder the proper functions of your taillight reflectors which is also required..
here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24607.htm
and here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24608.htm
05-24-2011, 05:45 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,132
I think this contradicting itself when it says in section E that you're required 500 feet to the rear visible, but then the tinted amendment says 1000 feet. It's worth debating that there is a double standard, and that you'd be right to argue that the lesser distance is all that you should need to achieve.
That said, this statute is obviously from your state, and all states will differ. Some states may not even have an amendment to the effect of tinted lights, or may have statutes that specifically say you can't tint period.
To the point already raised about the reflectors built into the light, they need not be obstructed. There's a Federal DoT standard that all vehicles manufactured for sale in the US have front and rear reflectors so that when it's parked it's visible when lights illuminate it. Therefore, it's entirely possible that even if you're visible with lights on at 500-1000 feet, yet obstruction of the reflector causes that parked visibility to diminish, they might still say you're not permitted to tint. Conversely, they still may need to have clearly defined statutes that describe the DoT minimum, so that you can refute any distance requirement provided that the reflectors still work through the tint.
That said, this statute is obviously from your state, and all states will differ. Some states may not even have an amendment to the effect of tinted lights, or may have statutes that specifically say you can't tint period.
To the point already raised about the reflectors built into the light, they need not be obstructed. There's a Federal DoT standard that all vehicles manufactured for sale in the US have front and rear reflectors so that when it's parked it's visible when lights illuminate it. Therefore, it's entirely possible that even if you're visible with lights on at 500-1000 feet, yet obstruction of the reflector causes that parked visibility to diminish, they might still say you're not permitted to tint. Conversely, they still may need to have clearly defined statutes that describe the DoT minimum, so that you can refute any distance requirement provided that the reflectors still work through the tint.
05-24-2011, 02:47 PM
#7
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 52
I'm up in Canada and i've had tinted taillights for 2 years now never been pulled over or harrassed about it. But if the states are anything like here the rules are different everywhere. I got questioned about it in Nova Scotia but never in ontario. Just dont over-do the tint in the sun you can still see the red through my tint at night you cant even tell they are tinted
05-24-2011, 05:33 PM
#10
Cant lie.. I have been pulled over in the town i go to college in (really small town) multiple times for all types of bs such as tinted license plate cover, license plate lights too bright, etc.. and whenever I get pulled over they flashlight all in the backseat and everywhere inside and triple check my ID and ask me 40 times does the car truly belong to me. However, I have (knock on wood) never been pulled over for tinted tails.
When I go home to Atlanta, I have (knock on wood again) never been pulled over for anything but blatant speeding. So maybe there is some correlation between small city and large city violations?
When I go home to Atlanta, I have (knock on wood again) never been pulled over for anything but blatant speeding. So maybe there is some correlation between small city and large city violations?
05-24-2011, 05:35 PM
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: montreal
Posts: 23
I also got smoked lights and they are very dark , got a ticket and it said that the car had to have at least one red deflector on each side of the car closest to the rear possible !
05-24-2011, 10:05 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,625
i have already written a formal letter to the police station asking to clarify on the DMV section regarding tail lights and any other provisions against tinted lights. it will apply to all California residents. ill report back when they let me know whats up.
05-25-2011, 10:40 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 670
The reflectors must be visible from the side and rear to get DOT approval. When you tint, your blocking the light going in and out of the lens reducing the effectiveness of the reflectors.
05-25-2011, 04:05 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: inside my own mind
Posts: 1,506
Here's the website but the red and black are both out of stock right now.
http://www.ezkoncepts.com/
Last edited by 6.5affiliate; 05-25-2011 at 04:10 PM.
05-29-2011, 02:01 PM
#21
All states are different, you are required to read your local state laws and all that you plan on traveling through before hand. In Washington and Hawaii, they are perfectly legal as long as you meet the requirements specified in their law respectively. Been tinted for 6 years now and only questioned once. I told him the state law and he proceeded to find other things wrong with the car, and questioned them. Stupid cop, didn't even know his own state laws. I keep a copy of each law that may be in question in my glove box just in case. 
Just be respectful and confident, and you should be fine. If you think you are right, stick by it and the cop will give you a warning or a fix it vice a fine. Most cops are cool, just fed up with idiots trying to get away with breaking the law.
Just be respectful and confident, and you should be fine. If you think you are right, stick by it and the cop will give you a warning or a fix it vice a fine. Most cops are cool, just fed up with idiots trying to get away with breaking the law.
06-01-2011, 02:53 PM
#23
If you need more--- Can you see that your black lights are red from 1000 feet away? I don't think you can see that they are red from 5 feet away. They don't specify that they are legal if you can see them in the dark with your lights on. They are talking about in the day light and when you hit your brakes and your bulbs are not bright enough to shine red and warn the driver behind you that you are stopping. Thats why they are illegal. Time for you to buy some new taillights.
06-01-2011, 03:07 PM
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,625
SHALL BE RED IN COLOR.... enough said.
If you need more--- Can you see that your black lights are red from 1000 feet away? I don't think you can see that they are red from 5 feet away. They don't specify that they are legal if you can see them in the dark with your lights on. They are talking about in the day light and when you hit your brakes and your bulbs are not bright enough to shine red and warn the driver behind you that you are stopping. Thats why they are illegal. Time for you to buy some new taillights.
If you need more--- Can you see that your black lights are red from 1000 feet away? I don't think you can see that they are red from 5 feet away. They don't specify that they are legal if you can see them in the dark with your lights on. They are talking about in the day light and when you hit your brakes and your bulbs are not bright enough to shine red and warn the driver behind you that you are stopping. Thats why they are illegal. Time for you to buy some new taillights.
i have my original tail lights, i wasn't going to risk ruining my original tails, so i got a tinted set for 30 bucks and did that. also if i get a ticket i can just swap them out
also, the lights are extremely visible. i meet all requirements for on road use, except one thing, i need to run it through a test and prove they qualify all laws.
06-01-2011, 03:09 PM
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,625
this is the final verdict guys
Andrew, our collision reconstruction officer researched your question and his answer and resources are listed below. Thank you for inquiring.
Dwayne May, Sergeant
Riverside Police, Traffic Bureau
25950. This section applies to the color of lamps and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible…
(c) All lamps and reflectors visible from the front, sides, or rear of a vehicle, except headlamps, may have any unlighted color, provided the emitted light from all lamps or reflected light from all reflectors complies with the required color. Except for backup lamps, the entire effective projected luminous area of lamps visible from the rear or mounted on the sides near the rear of a vehicleshall be covered by an inner lens of the required color when the unlighted color differs from the required emitted light color. Taillamps, stoplamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted on vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1974.
24607. Every vehicle subject to registration under this code shall at all times be equipped with red reflectors mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with at least one reflector so maintained as to be plainly visible at night from all distances within 350 to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of the lawful upper headlamp beams.
(b) Every vehicle… shall be equipped with at least two reflectors meeting the visibility requirements of subdivision (a)...
Section 25950(c) CVC allows for the tinted tail lamp assemblies. 24607(a)/(b) CVC requires that he have red reflectors.From his email, it appears Andrew is good with both sections.
However:
26100. (a) A person shall not sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device that does not meet the provisions of Section 26104.
(b) A person shall not use upon a vehicle, and a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway that is equipped with, any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device that is not in compliance with Section 26104.
26101 . (a) A person shall not sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104.
(b) A person shall not use upon a vehicle, and a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway that has installed a device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of a lighting, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device complies with Section 26104.
26104. (a) Every manufacturer who sells, offers for sale, or manufactures for use upon a vehicle devices subject to requirements established by the department shall, before the device is offered for sale, have laboratory test data showing compliance with such requirements. Tests may be conducted by the manufacturer.
These sections are the kicker. If a device, such as a tail light, is modified from the manufacturer’s original design (such as applying a tinting film), then it no longer complies with its tested condition and must be re-tested by the manufacturer in order to comply. Many aftermarket light accessories are not factory tested to comply with this section. The “burden of proof” will fall on Andrew to show the tail light assembly has been properly tested.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, tinted tail light assemblies are legal and proper if the manufacturer has tested them and shown they are in compliance with California Vehicle Code section 26100/26104 (a factory produced tinted assembly). However, if the purchaser then modifies the assembly by applying spray-on tint or otherwise changing the visual conspicuity of the assembly in a way not tested by the manufacturer, the assembly is in violation of CVC 26100/26101 (as it no longer is as was tested). If I have read Andrew’s email correctly, he has applied a spray on clear coat to modify the visual characteristics of his tail lights. As such, he has modified them from the manufacturer’s tested design and made them illegal for on-road use. While I applaud this attempt at saving money by modifying his vehicle himself, if he wishes to remain “street legal” he will need to purchase a manufactured and properly tested tinted tail light assembly.
Greg
so basically, i need to get the tail lights tested. what ill do is run a gammet of tests take pictures and document the results of all the laws regarding tail lights. if i get a ticket i will fight it and more likely it will be dismissed. i talked to another officer and he said the testing don't NEED to be done by the original manufacturer, and by altering the tail lights yourself you become a sort of manufacturer of your own tail lights. so in conclusion, i should be legal after all these steps are done.
if you guys want to know what i typed as my question you can read below.
Hello, my name is Andrew. I have been customizing my car lately and recently tinted my tail lights. I recently discovered this could be illegal! So I have been doing some reading in the California Vehicle Code. I do not want to have anything illegal on my car, and I am concerned for safety and respect all our officers that uphold the law.
In section 24600 in the CVC,
During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.
(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).
(c) Every vehicle or vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles, subject to subdivision (a) of Section 22406 shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps.
(d) When two taillamps are required, at least one shall be mounted at the left and one at the right side respectively at the same level.
(e) Taillamps shall be red in color and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear.
(f) Taillamps on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 72 inches, except that a tow truck, in addition to being equipped with the required taillamps, may also be equipped with two taillamps which may be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than the maximum allowable vehicle height and as far forward as the rearmost portion of the driver's seat in the rearmost position. The additional taillamps on a tow truck shall be lighted whenever the headlamps are lighted.
According to subsection (a) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (b) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (c) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (d) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (e) I have some questions
“Taillamps shall be red in color” does the word lamp, mean light? Or does the word lamp mean the plastic part of the tail light assembly. If you read on “…and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet…” this statement leads me to believe that the word “lamp” means the lighted portion of my tail light assembly. The color of my tail lights while the car is off is black. While the car is running and/or in use the lamps illuminate the tail section red. The red color is clear and visible with no room for misconception from all angles of the road night and day.
I am asking clarification because although 90% of the tail light assembly illuminates red, the edges (3/4”-1.5”) and non-braking portions of the assembly remains a dark red/black. This is the portion of the tail light assembly that does not receive light from the red light bulb with or without tint. To clarify, it is the portion of the assembly that illuminates white when backing up and yellow when indicating. The assembly is sectioned off into four parts and covered by one red plastic lens; 1) parking lights/running lights (illuminates red while car is on) 2)brake lights (illuminates and even brighter red when brake pedal is depressed) 3) turn signal (illuminates yellow when signaling) 4) reverse lights (illuminates white while in reverse). The portion of the assembly that remains dark red/black are the portions that will illuminate yellow and white when used but remain dark red/black when not in use. Is this acceptable? Again the actual brake lights are red and remain red at all time and show red to all drivers around me. The only portions that are not red are the turn signal portion and the reverse light portion of the assembly. In some other cars the parking/brake lights are in a separate housing than the turn and reverse. In my car they are all combined making this subsection a bit unclear in my case.
Also to comply with this subsection I have purchased brighter light bulbs. My parking lights and braking lights are brighter than they were before the tint. I did this to preserve safety on the road and to meet the 1000 foot requirement so that I do not break any laws.
According to subsection (f) I meet the requirements
According to section 24607, “Every vehicle subject to registration under this code shall at all times be equipped with red reflectors mounted on the rear as follows”
The reflectors that are located in the tail light assembly still reflect light when light is shined on them. Regardless of this fact, I have purchased two red reflectors and mounted them in the specified acceptable locations according to the CVC section referenced above, in addition to the reflectors that are still functional in my tinted tail light assembly. With these added reflectors my car has become even more visible than it did from the dealership. With these reflectors I comply with CVC section 24607 without question.
The last question I have is in regards to one of the citations people get for tinting their tail lights and not providing the additions to keeping their car safely visible and legal.
26101. No person shall sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle, nor shall any person use upon a vehicle, any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104. This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935, or to lamps installed on authorized emergency vehicles.
Amended Sec. 26, Ch. 945, Stats. 1997. Effective January 1, 1998.
I have seen many references of people receiving this non-correctable citation for tinting tail lights but I would like some clarification. Is it accurate for a police officer to use this specific citation in terms of citing tinted tail lights? Also would it be appropriately used in my situation as the tint I used is not a film, which is traditionally used? It is a translucent spray, called clear coat (which is not illegal to spray on your car in any location, which I believe would be disqualifying it from being termed as a device and more importantly it passes the department laboratory tests regulations and is legal to sell and manufacture). Also, the term devise doesn’t seem to include clear coat in any definition I have researched. Because the method of tinting I used IS clear coat with a dark hue, commonly used with a pearly white paint, or a darker silvery paint job. I used it in several coats which will gradually darken material. So my question is can this citation be used in labeling dark clear coat as a devise? The can of clear states that it is legal to use on your vehicle which should meet the disqualifying clause in section 26101. I am just using it in an excessive fashion for the purpose of tinting due to the fact that the film is not easy to work with.
If this citation can appropriately be used in my case as a valid citation, I would like to conclude by asking if there is a way I can go to the police station or other specified place to have my tail lights inspected and approved for road use so that I may be disqualified from this specific citation as it states in the text. Where could I go and what do I need to do to have the correct person approve me for road use? I know this seems like a lot of trouble, but I am willing to go through it because I want to make sure that I am not breaking any laws and I would feel more comfortable if I could have a police officer look at it and tell me in person that I have covered all my bases and that I am safe for the road. I do not want to break any laws, as it is important to me that I respect the California vehicle code and the officers that uphold the law. I want to do things the right way and not cause any problems for anybody. I have taken redundant steps to insure that my car is safe and visible and the results show to be that my car is now much more visible after the additions and tint than it was before. Any reasonably officer would agree, but I want to make sure I am 100% ok.
Thank you for your time
I appreciate your effort and consideration Sincerely, Andrew M.
Andrew, our collision reconstruction officer researched your question and his answer and resources are listed below. Thank you for inquiring.
Dwayne May, Sergeant
Riverside Police, Traffic Bureau
25950. This section applies to the color of lamps and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible…
(c) All lamps and reflectors visible from the front, sides, or rear of a vehicle, except headlamps, may have any unlighted color, provided the emitted light from all lamps or reflected light from all reflectors complies with the required color. Except for backup lamps, the entire effective projected luminous area of lamps visible from the rear or mounted on the sides near the rear of a vehicleshall be covered by an inner lens of the required color when the unlighted color differs from the required emitted light color. Taillamps, stoplamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted on vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1974.
24607. Every vehicle subject to registration under this code shall at all times be equipped with red reflectors mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with at least one reflector so maintained as to be plainly visible at night from all distances within 350 to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of the lawful upper headlamp beams.
(b) Every vehicle… shall be equipped with at least two reflectors meeting the visibility requirements of subdivision (a)...
Section 25950(c) CVC allows for the tinted tail lamp assemblies. 24607(a)/(b) CVC requires that he have red reflectors.From his email, it appears Andrew is good with both sections.
However:
26100. (a) A person shall not sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device that does not meet the provisions of Section 26104.
(b) A person shall not use upon a vehicle, and a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway that is equipped with, any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device that is not in compliance with Section 26104.
26101 . (a) A person shall not sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104.
(b) A person shall not use upon a vehicle, and a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway that has installed a device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of a lighting, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device complies with Section 26104.
26104. (a) Every manufacturer who sells, offers for sale, or manufactures for use upon a vehicle devices subject to requirements established by the department shall, before the device is offered for sale, have laboratory test data showing compliance with such requirements. Tests may be conducted by the manufacturer.
These sections are the kicker. If a device, such as a tail light, is modified from the manufacturer’s original design (such as applying a tinting film), then it no longer complies with its tested condition and must be re-tested by the manufacturer in order to comply. Many aftermarket light accessories are not factory tested to comply with this section. The “burden of proof” will fall on Andrew to show the tail light assembly has been properly tested.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, tinted tail light assemblies are legal and proper if the manufacturer has tested them and shown they are in compliance with California Vehicle Code section 26100/26104 (a factory produced tinted assembly). However, if the purchaser then modifies the assembly by applying spray-on tint or otherwise changing the visual conspicuity of the assembly in a way not tested by the manufacturer, the assembly is in violation of CVC 26100/26101 (as it no longer is as was tested). If I have read Andrew’s email correctly, he has applied a spray on clear coat to modify the visual characteristics of his tail lights. As such, he has modified them from the manufacturer’s tested design and made them illegal for on-road use. While I applaud this attempt at saving money by modifying his vehicle himself, if he wishes to remain “street legal” he will need to purchase a manufactured and properly tested tinted tail light assembly.
Greg
so basically, i need to get the tail lights tested. what ill do is run a gammet of tests take pictures and document the results of all the laws regarding tail lights. if i get a ticket i will fight it and more likely it will be dismissed. i talked to another officer and he said the testing don't NEED to be done by the original manufacturer, and by altering the tail lights yourself you become a sort of manufacturer of your own tail lights. so in conclusion, i should be legal after all these steps are done.
if you guys want to know what i typed as my question you can read below.
Hello, my name is Andrew. I have been customizing my car lately and recently tinted my tail lights. I recently discovered this could be illegal! So I have been doing some reading in the California Vehicle Code. I do not want to have anything illegal on my car, and I am concerned for safety and respect all our officers that uphold the law.
In section 24600 in the CVC,
During darkness every motor vehicle which is not in combination with any other vehicle and every vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with lighted taillamps mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.
(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).
(c) Every vehicle or vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles, subject to subdivision (a) of Section 22406 shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps.
(d) When two taillamps are required, at least one shall be mounted at the left and one at the right side respectively at the same level.
(e) Taillamps shall be red in color and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear.
(f) Taillamps on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 72 inches, except that a tow truck, in addition to being equipped with the required taillamps, may also be equipped with two taillamps which may be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than the maximum allowable vehicle height and as far forward as the rearmost portion of the driver's seat in the rearmost position. The additional taillamps on a tow truck shall be lighted whenever the headlamps are lighted.
According to subsection (a) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (b) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (c) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (d) I meet the requirements
According to subsection (e) I have some questions
“Taillamps shall be red in color” does the word lamp, mean light? Or does the word lamp mean the plastic part of the tail light assembly. If you read on “…and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet…” this statement leads me to believe that the word “lamp” means the lighted portion of my tail light assembly. The color of my tail lights while the car is off is black. While the car is running and/or in use the lamps illuminate the tail section red. The red color is clear and visible with no room for misconception from all angles of the road night and day.
I am asking clarification because although 90% of the tail light assembly illuminates red, the edges (3/4”-1.5”) and non-braking portions of the assembly remains a dark red/black. This is the portion of the tail light assembly that does not receive light from the red light bulb with or without tint. To clarify, it is the portion of the assembly that illuminates white when backing up and yellow when indicating. The assembly is sectioned off into four parts and covered by one red plastic lens; 1) parking lights/running lights (illuminates red while car is on) 2)brake lights (illuminates and even brighter red when brake pedal is depressed) 3) turn signal (illuminates yellow when signaling) 4) reverse lights (illuminates white while in reverse). The portion of the assembly that remains dark red/black are the portions that will illuminate yellow and white when used but remain dark red/black when not in use. Is this acceptable? Again the actual brake lights are red and remain red at all time and show red to all drivers around me. The only portions that are not red are the turn signal portion and the reverse light portion of the assembly. In some other cars the parking/brake lights are in a separate housing than the turn and reverse. In my car they are all combined making this subsection a bit unclear in my case.
Also to comply with this subsection I have purchased brighter light bulbs. My parking lights and braking lights are brighter than they were before the tint. I did this to preserve safety on the road and to meet the 1000 foot requirement so that I do not break any laws.
According to subsection (f) I meet the requirements
According to section 24607, “Every vehicle subject to registration under this code shall at all times be equipped with red reflectors mounted on the rear as follows”
The reflectors that are located in the tail light assembly still reflect light when light is shined on them. Regardless of this fact, I have purchased two red reflectors and mounted them in the specified acceptable locations according to the CVC section referenced above, in addition to the reflectors that are still functional in my tinted tail light assembly. With these added reflectors my car has become even more visible than it did from the dealership. With these reflectors I comply with CVC section 24607 without question.
The last question I have is in regards to one of the citations people get for tinting their tail lights and not providing the additions to keeping their car safely visible and legal.
26101. No person shall sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle, nor shall any person use upon a vehicle, any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104. This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935, or to lamps installed on authorized emergency vehicles.
Amended Sec. 26, Ch. 945, Stats. 1997. Effective January 1, 1998.
I have seen many references of people receiving this non-correctable citation for tinting tail lights but I would like some clarification. Is it accurate for a police officer to use this specific citation in terms of citing tinted tail lights? Also would it be appropriately used in my situation as the tint I used is not a film, which is traditionally used? It is a translucent spray, called clear coat (which is not illegal to spray on your car in any location, which I believe would be disqualifying it from being termed as a device and more importantly it passes the department laboratory tests regulations and is legal to sell and manufacture). Also, the term devise doesn’t seem to include clear coat in any definition I have researched. Because the method of tinting I used IS clear coat with a dark hue, commonly used with a pearly white paint, or a darker silvery paint job. I used it in several coats which will gradually darken material. So my question is can this citation be used in labeling dark clear coat as a devise? The can of clear states that it is legal to use on your vehicle which should meet the disqualifying clause in section 26101. I am just using it in an excessive fashion for the purpose of tinting due to the fact that the film is not easy to work with.
If this citation can appropriately be used in my case as a valid citation, I would like to conclude by asking if there is a way I can go to the police station or other specified place to have my tail lights inspected and approved for road use so that I may be disqualified from this specific citation as it states in the text. Where could I go and what do I need to do to have the correct person approve me for road use? I know this seems like a lot of trouble, but I am willing to go through it because I want to make sure that I am not breaking any laws and I would feel more comfortable if I could have a police officer look at it and tell me in person that I have covered all my bases and that I am safe for the road. I do not want to break any laws, as it is important to me that I respect the California vehicle code and the officers that uphold the law. I want to do things the right way and not cause any problems for anybody. I have taken redundant steps to insure that my car is safe and visible and the results show to be that my car is now much more visible after the additions and tint than it was before. Any reasonably officer would agree, but I want to make sure I am 100% ok.
Thank you for your time
I appreciate your effort and consideration Sincerely, Andrew M.
Last edited by twentyeggs; 06-01-2011 at 03:22 PM.
06-02-2011, 05:26 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,132
SHALL BE RED IN COLOR.... enough said.
If you need more--- Can you see that your black lights are red from 1000 feet away? I don't think you can see that they are red from 5 feet away. They don't specify that they are legal if you can see them in the dark with your lights on. They are talking about in the day light and when you hit your brakes and your bulbs are not bright enough to shine red and warn the driver behind you that you are stopping. Thats why they are illegal. Time for you to buy some new taillights.
If you need more--- Can you see that your black lights are red from 1000 feet away? I don't think you can see that they are red from 5 feet away. They don't specify that they are legal if you can see them in the dark with your lights on. They are talking about in the day light and when you hit your brakes and your bulbs are not bright enough to shine red and warn the driver behind you that you are stopping. Thats why they are illegal. Time for you to buy some new taillights.
06-02-2011, 08:09 AM
#28
They could but all of the ezkoncepts LED tail lights have red reflectors and are DOT approved.
You should get it and plus, they're cheaper than they've ever been.
Here's the website but the red and black are both out of stock right now.
http://www.ezkoncepts.com/
You should get it and plus, they're cheaper than they've ever been.
Here's the website but the red and black are both out of stock right now.
http://www.ezkoncepts.com/
thanks for the website i heard thats the guy that invented them is that true...and that is a good price they are over 300 on ebay..i was looking to get the ruby red i guess ill have to wait!
06-02-2011, 10:07 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 569
I personally went with the Spec-D Tunning ones in blk->
http://www.specdtuning.com/04-08-nis...aillights.html
either way, you will love the look buddy
06-02-2011, 07:23 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: inside my own mind
Posts: 1,506
Anyways, yeah it's going to be cheaper on his site since he's the one that presented the idea to IPCW. He has the right to beat everyone elses price and at the same time raise theirs because of that. So, he holds a lot of weight when it comes to these particular tail lights. And yeah, they've been sold out for a little bit now but I'm sure he'll get some more in soon.
Last edited by 6.5affiliate; 06-02-2011 at 07:26 PM.
06-03-2011, 06:29 PM
#33
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5
You start a relationship with me and act like it never happened. Well I found your little site one night while we were sleeping. If your gonna swing both ways than just tell me from the start. Don't say your GAY and sleep with me and then just stop. Bastard !
06-03-2011, 06:36 PM
#34
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,625
You start a thread and do all the talking. You answer your own questions and argue with other members. Your nothing but poor trash with a less than $10K car. If you do a SEARCH then you will see most of this **** was discussed years ago.
You start a relationship with me and act like it never happened. Well I found your little site one night while we were sleeping. If your gonna swing both ways than just tell me from the start. Don't say your GAY and sleep with me and then just stop. Bastard !
You start a relationship with me and act like it never happened. Well I found your little site one night while we were sleeping. If your gonna swing both ways than just tell me from the start. Don't say your GAY and sleep with me and then just stop. Bastard !
:metalmax: wow.... just... wow.....
just so you all know his other username is Silvexima
Last edited by twentyeggs; 06-03-2011 at 07:16 PM.
06-04-2011, 08:45 AM
#37
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9
Got *****? wanna bet $1000 I am not twenty__eggs ??
fvcking cvnt....
06-04-2011, 12:56 PM
#40
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,625
thats because the 6th gen section is dead.. no one posts, im trying to keep this place active
Last edited by twentyeggs; 06-04-2011 at 12:59 PM.