Smoked Tail-Lights Legal in CA?

[Reasy]

Does anyone have any experience about running aftermarket DOT approved tail lights in California (TOMS, etc) and still managing to get pulled over? I wanted a better look than my stock tail's and heard that others have been pulled over for aftermarkets. If they are DOT approved, such as TOMS, can a cop legally give me a ticket considering they have the side markers?

Also, is tinting/getting a smoked rear bumper light illegal such as the Valenti? I know the tinted/smoked rear tail lights are illegal but how about the bumper light?
link: https://modbargains.com/valenti-led-...u-brz-zn6-zc6/

[Dorkhedeos]

Originally Posted by Reasy

Does anyone have any experience about running aftermarket DOT approved tail lights in California (TOMS, etc) and still managing to get pulled over? I wanted a better look than my stock tail's and heard that others have been pulled over for aftermarkets. If they are DOT approved, such as TOMS, can a cop legally give me a ticket considering they have the side markers?

Also, is tinting/getting a smoked rear bumper light illegal such as the Valenti? I know the tinted/smoked rear tail lights are illegal but how about the bumper light?
link: https://modbargains.com/valenti-led-...u-brz-zn6-zc6/

Valenti tail lights aren't legal because they are not DOT approved. There are no legal darkened tail lights. Darkening headlights would also be illegal.

You can be pulled over for everything you mentioned at any time after you install them.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Reasy

Does anyone have any experience about running aftermarket DOT approved tail lights in California (TOMS, etc) and still managing to get pulled over? I wanted a better look than my stock tail's and heard that others have been pulled over for aftermarkets. If they are DOT approved, such as TOMS, can a cop legally give me a ticket considering they have the side markers?

Also, is tinting/getting a smoked rear bumper light illegal such as the Valenti? I know the tinted/smoked rear tail lights are illegal but how about the bumper light?
link: https://modbargains.com/valenti-led-...u-brz-zn6-zc6/

Non DOT approved lights are not legal anyplace in North America. That said, unless you have some really REALLY odd lights there are few cops that will go looking for that little approval stamp on your lights. If they are looking that hard to write you a ticket odds are you really screwed up someplace.
There is no legal requirement for the "bumper light" as it is actually just your reverse lights and a reflector. You can do whatever you want with it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dorkhedeos

Valenti tail lights aren't legal because they are not DOT approved. There are no legal darkened tail lights. Darkening headlights would also be illegal.

You can be pulled over for everything you mentioned at any time after you install them.

See below.

Originally Posted by Reasy

Does anyone have any experience about running aftermarket DOT approved tail lights in California (TOMS, etc) and still managing to get pulled over? I wanted a better look than my stock tail's and heard that others have been pulled over for aftermarkets. If they are DOT approved, such as TOMS, can a cop legally give me a ticket considering they have the side markers?

Also, is tinting/getting a smoked rear bumper light illegal such as the Valenti? I know the tinted/smoked rear tail lights are illegal but how about the bumper light?
link: https://modbargains.com/valenti-led-...u-brz-zn6-zc6/

They are DOT approved, so they are fine. I have Tom’s. My reverse light is tinted, but also has higher powered LED bulbs, so they are just as bright.

I see nothing in the CVC that says darkening headlights or taillights is illegal, as long as the lights perform per the code.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=2.&article=2.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=2.&article=3.

[Irace86.2.0]

I should add. I have smoked front markers with amber LED bulbs. They are also legal.

[soundman98]

darkening any lighting assembly would be a modification of the housing. federal standards prohibit any modifications to the housings.

but the thing to remember is that no one is getting pulled over for a set of tail lights. you have to be doing something notable for the cop to become annoyed/concerned/irritated enough to make it worth his effort. if you blend in, no modification is noticed enough to justify being pulled over.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

darkening any lighting assembly would be a modification of the housing. federal standards prohibit any modifications to the housings.

but the thing to remember is that no one is getting pulled over for a set of tail lights. you have to be doing something notable for the cop to become annoyed/concerned/irritated enough to make it worth his effort. if you blend in, no modification is noticed enough to justify being pulled over.

I would assume CVC would meet or exceed DOT. Any link to support what you said?

I’ve been pulled over for tint and a clear license plate cover before (used to protect against rocks), but I have never had any lights ticketed during those stops.

[sharpsicle]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I would assume CVC would meet or exceed DOT.

Assuming is dangerous. Don't do it! Especially if you're asking for someone else to look into the law based on that assumption.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’ve been pulled over for tint and a clear license plate cover before (used to protect against rocks), but I have never had any lights ticketed during those stops.

Just remember, not being ticketed doesn't equate to it not being illegal or improper. It's a judgement call on the officer's part on what his goal for the traffic stop is.

Putting any aftermarket lighting on a car (or modifying factory lenses) is always questionable in terms of the law, if not straight up a violation of it. Just like, technically speaking, any exhaust modification can also be viewed as a violation. It's the calculated risk that anyone who does these modifications takes. I would be hesitant to ever imply otherwise.

This is why personally, I keep the factory sets of any lights I replace so that if I do get cited for it, I can just swap them out and show it was repaired and get the ticket removed.

All that said, if you don't cause problems on the road, you won't draw attention. If you don't draw attention, things like this won't be an issue.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by sharpsicle

Assuming is dangerous. Don't do it! Especially if you're asking for someone else to look into the law based on that assumption.

Just remember, not being ticketed doesn't equate to it not being illegal or improper. It's a judgement call on the officer's part on what his goal for the traffic stop is.

Putting any aftermarket lighting on a car (or modifying factory lenses) is always questionable in terms of the law, if not straight up a violation of it. Just like, technically speaking, any exhaust modification can also be viewed as a violation. It's the calculated risk that anyone who does these modifications takes. I would be hesitant to ever imply otherwise.

This is why personally, I keep the factory sets of any lights I replace so that if I do get cited for it, I can just swap them out and show it was repaired and get the ticket removed.

All that said, if you don't cause problems on the road, you won't draw attention. If you don't draw attention, things like this won't be an issue.

I wasn’t assuming as much as saying that I have read the CVC, and I have seen nothing stating it is a violation, so I was asking for evidence of the law, since I wasn’t making a claim that there is a law, and I can’t really prove a negative much more than linking the CVC, which I did.

Any modifications from the cats back is California smog legal and anything under 95db is not violating exhaust noise laws, so not a violation as you say.

Lighting laws are often written in a way that specifies the amount of lights, the location and the minimum performance. Just to give an example, the front markers need to be amber in California (white or amber in many states), but there is only a specification that it illuminates amber when it is on at night. It can be an amber housing with a white bulb or a white/smoked housing with an amber bulb; it just needs to light up amber. It also needs to be seen from 500ft away. Tinting would seem to be a problem then, except my LED bulb is brighter than the incandescent bulb. Moreover, a candle can be seen from like a mile away at night, so most modifications would be more than bright enough.

Mild tinting LED lights is likely going to do very little to prevent them from performing as needed.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I would assume CVC would meet or exceed DOT. Any link to support what you said?

I’ve been pulled over for tint and a clear license plate cover before (used to protect against rocks), but I have never had any lights ticketed during those stops.

just like any other federal law, the states are supposed to meet or exceed it.

this is what i'm referencing:
fmvss 108
https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/TP-108-13.pdf

page 2, #2: general requirements:
"Each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment specified in the Standard, and required
equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended
Practices referenced in the Standard as applicable. "

an alteration of the light output of the assembly would mean it cannot perform to the SAE standards as originally designed.

the massively short overview of fmvss 108 is specifically that it is contractor/manufacturer-based. meaning that individuals can't get an altered lighting assembly tested and verified in any capacity. i have actually tried. i was quoted "over $10,000" by one testing company to verify my modified eclipse tail lights, and then they refused to communicate with me after that. they literally didn't want to even talk to me about it.

the other important aspect is that fmvss testing is an all-or-nothing affair. they do not allow just re-testing photometric efficiency. change an incandescent bulb to an led bulb, and the lighting assembly must go through the entire output, vibration, moisture, dust, corrosion, plastic optical tests, and heat test cycles. despite the fact that the housing can already have certification within any or all of those categories. the test proceedure is specifically worded and oriented for the procedure of manufacturing thousands of that specific lighting assembly. there are no provisions within the code to allow for a one-off design that you or i would design for our vehicles.

also critical is that manufacturers self-certify any lighting assembly they make, and then it's a convoluted process to try to get them reported, tested, and fined for not meeting the standards. it's literally how valenti stays in business all the while making absolute garbage housings with crap led's...

it's an incredibly obtuse system dreamed up by politicians, and lawyers, and it shows in every way. it's also the reason we can't have led headlights like the europeans...



but the reason you haven't been ticketed is because the reality is that tinted tail lights aren't doing drive-bys, or dealing drugs. they don't contribute to speeding tickets, or fulfill any politicians desire to be chased. so lighting laws largely exist, but are ignored because they aren't considered a huge deal by most.

in a lot of ways, it's sort of like marijuana. federally, it's still illegal, but everyone's starting to figure out there's bigger fish to deal with.

that doesn't make modified lighting any less illegal, which means that if a cop were to get a stick up their butt, it's completely fair game for them to go after. but at this point, it's something that exists in the margins enough that it doesn't matter to most to justify pursuing.

my point in telling people about the legality issue is awareness. i still modify my lighting. but i do so more carefully to attempt to maintain oem brightness levels. my goals have never been to obscure my lights, which was the original intent on getting my eclipse lights certified, until they cut me off due to me not being a manufacturer.

believe me, i want a way to certify my lights. i don't like existing in the margins, waiting for freshly minted badge to press his luck. the europeans have specific tests that any body shop has tools to test and pass/fail any headlight-- they have a very easy time modifying housings and getting them to pass certification once a very basic set of requirements are met. the US doesn't have any of that.

[churchx]

Don't speak that general about all europeans. For example, there is germany where everything needs to be TUV certified to be road legal, which also is expensive, which is reason few manufacturers go for. Just like in US, where in different states there can be differing set of regulations, there can be differences among EU members.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

just like any other federal law, the states are supposed to meet or exceed it.

this is what i'm referencing:
fmvss 108
https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/TP-108-13.pdf

page 2, #2: general requirements:
"Each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment specified in the Standard, and required
equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended
Practices referenced in the Standard as applicable. "

an alteration of the light output of the assembly would mean it cannot perform to the SAE standards as originally designed.

That’s an assumption and likely incorrect. One would have to assume that the lights just barely meet SAE standards, such that, tinting would make them fail to perform. The lights probably greatly exceed the standards. Think about it. It is like emission laws; do cars just barely pass emissions from the factory, or do they have a margin of exceeding the standards? I already said how the CVC defines the performance of the light, and reasonable tinting would likely not present a problem because there is so much room between the standards and the capabilities of the lights. Look at the difference in light output of halogen vs HID vs LED.

[churchx]

Exceeding standards isn't always right thing in all cases. Standards may also be failed with too "good"/"strong"/whatever output, that for example blinds oncoming traffic and such. In several cases best quality might not be "exceeding" but rather how close to required something is, not below and neither above. In case of light elements, if (to save on design/manufacturing costs) eg. reflector and bulb type stays same, i can easily imagine for tinted light to fail standards, no matter how high quality/compliant original part was. And if tinted is fine, may mean that original might be way off, and rises questions how it was tested/certified.

Still .. i hate a bit approach in general, when people for sake of minor visual looks change are willing to sacrifice safety or function.

[x808drifter]

While he refers to headlights, the same applies for tinting your tails.
google "CVC 26101"
You'll find many people getting tickets for tinted tails.