Smoked Taillights NJ.. Illegal or not?
 

I just installed DEPO tri bar taillights which are significantly dark, are these illegal in new jersey? All illuminations work for the distances inscribed in the law but since they're "stock" (as they come) dark am I clear?

Depends on if the officer just learned his dog died, his wife found someone else, or his favorite donut shop closed.

so its not a violation worthy of a pullover in and of itself? is it a secondary violation?

If there have a DOT cert moms on them they are legal. If they don’t they are not.
Whether they are a primary or secondary reason to be pulled over is totally up to the whim of the cop. Even if legal they can pull you over to check for the very mold.
Any mod that draws attention can have the same results though.

I've never been pulled over for them in my state but then again my state is lax on some laws. Had tons of cops behind me on the freeway etc and nothing. Does make me anxious though and when my smoked valenti v1 crapped out I upgraded to the sequential red/white ones.

depends entirely on the officer. it also depends on how shady you are. it could be reason enough to get you pulled over because they think you're suspicious..

most cops don't know lighting laws, or keep up to date on the latest aftermarket options. they go off their gut. if it's non-oem, to some it's illegal, and you can have a chance to prove it at the court date.

Hell, I don't know.

But I do have a question for the group.

WHY do some of you want to smoke (darken) the tail lights on a car?

Dang, back in the day we had these dinky little 6 Volt taillights, that could hardly be seen. Then, we went with bigger, brighter and more tail/stop lights that were more visible, thus safer.

Now, some want to go back to less visible tail/stop lights.

WHY?

OK, smokem up, but don't bitch when some old man, on a rainy night, with bad eyesight, and next to no night vision and trying to remember why he is going to where he is going - slams into the back of your car cause he didn't see it.

:sigh:


humfrz

If it's good enough for Michael Knight, it's enough reason for me.
http://www.extravaganzi.com/wp-conte...ght-Rider3.jpg

Yes, but, but, KITT was an advanced artificially intelligent, self-aware and nearly indestructible car. The machines we drive today are designed to self destruct to protect the driver, who is, a lot of the times, impaired, distracted and often not intelligent.

:sigh:


humfrz

a police officer on patrol was following me once, i indicated a turn with the smoked sequential spyder v1 tails. he pulled me over. not just bc of the tails, my car is loud, has a wing, gold wheels, 4%tint, and he saw me go by a few times, i had been cruising/lurking around my hometown, no speeding. i was a gentleman, he was a gentleman, but he remarked my lights "werent exacty kosher." whether the spyder v1 sequential smoked tails are dot approved, i dont know, neither did he, but they still draw attention.

moral of my story, id doesnt matter if they are legal or not

Cops can pull you for whatever they feel like...there are enough overlapping, outdated, and conflicting laws and regulations so that they can pretty much make up whatever bullshit reason they want to get you pulled. It doesn't matter if you think you can outsmart them on a technicality; at that point, you've already been pulled, have a ticket, and now need to appear in court if you want to prove them wrong. That said, they're also lazy. So, the fewer reasons you give them to be in your shit in the first place, the better off you are. Tinted ANYTHING is a easy one for them. Not to mention the other reasons listed by fellow old-timers...lol..

This whole tinted tail light thing is super annoying. It can be really hard to see them light up in the rain or if the sun is shining right on them especially when they're done poorly (which is most of the time).

my current prevailing theory is a sort of reverse darwinism.

every time i see a set, my internal monologue of the cars say "i'm so cool and have so much extra money and time, i can afford to risk getting involved in an accident that will consume massive amounts of all of those resources, and it won't matter"

i on the other hand are short on money, time, and hate dealing with the general public only slightly less than i hate dealing with insurance agencies, so i keep my brake lights as bright as possible to avoid such a scenario.

Agreed. Looks 'cool'
In reality they are more dangerous specially in bad weather. Makes you harder to see and more likely to get rear ended by someone.

I often drive with my lights on the first setting so the tail lights are lit. I think it makes a difference even during the day. I've been doing this for over 20 years.

i agree, and do the same. but the nhtsa says it has almost no discernible difference.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/811029

Almost means it might help once. If that once is the time it needed to help I win. I'll keep the running lights on :)

See and be seen; stay alive.

https://media.giphy.com/media/KB7Moe...jvDp/giphy.gif

I'd smoke toys and model cars' lights, not the thing that I would ride in traffic.

Not to personally jab to OP, but in general... Imagine being stupid enough to purposefully make your brake lights less visible in almost any braking scenario.

The legal implication is no joke, imagine defending yourself to your own insurance when they find out that you purposefully decreasing the illumination output of brake lights. Good luck to any accidental/frivolous injury claim against you.

Most tinted lenses decrease output from what I've seen personally, but a few thought out retrofits I think achieve the blackout/brake lights dual task.

/rant

ok, so here's the legal response when it comes to lighting laws. on my last car, i did a lot of customization of the lighting, because it combined my electronic and automotive hobbies. in the process, i started reading and learning where US laws are currently on any and all vehicle lighting.

per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Section 108, which is entirely about vehicle lighting, all housings are self-certified as a completed, complaint assembly by the manufacturer of the assembly, including the bulbs specified by that manufacturer. any alteration whatsoever of a housing once it has left the factory makes the entire housing illegal. period. that means, any films/coatings/sprays(it makes no difference if the coating is clear or opaque), or any bulb deviation from what is stamped into the bottom of the housing will make the entire assembly unfit for use on american roads. the law in written in such a way that a small scratch could be considered 'damage', as the lighting assemblies are considered precision assemblies, and that small scratch can affect the housings light output. show me one car over 10 years old without a few scratches in any of the lighting assemblies...

i did a lot of research into attempting to get my modified tail light assemblies certified. the short answer is that the law is written specifically to only allow manufacturers to offer any automotive lighting solutions. there are no paths to independent self-certification.. aftermarket housings is a magical grey area, as they're both manufacturers, and they don't ask permission to put the stamps on them. so the housings while having the appropriate stampings on them, the majority of the time rarely comply the requisite laws on output or intensity difference between functions.

the only legally correct answer per FMVSS 108 to anyone that wants to run a different bulb/housing is that they need to replace the entire vehicle with something that contains that lighting assembly from the manufacturer.

this is the state of automotive lighting in america, where the only winners are corporations who have bent the country to their will.

knowing this, it means that we as consumers are all losers. we are free to install any and all bulb styles and aftermarket housings as we want on our cars, but must know that the risk is that at any point throughout the judicial system, the cards are stacked against such moves, and we must rely on being a small problem in a large system where many of the law enforcers are oblivious to the applicable laws in a very small subset of a specific category.

all of this is to say that if an officer of the law were to take the time to familiarize themselves with the current federal laws (i'm not even getting into state laws, or local ordinances) on vehicle lighting that all states by law must uphold, there are very few cars that are legal anywhere if they're older than 5 years, which interestingly encourages everyone to replace their vehicles more often...

which is why i still modify my vehicle lighting. if i'm fvcked every which way i look into it, i'm going to take my time and enjoy it in some way.

To have the coolest car in the trailer park.

Welp, I reckon that post should end this thread - :iono:


humfrz

These taillights actually increase the width of the taillight and the overall presence. Also, these taillights are actually *super* clear, you can see through the housing with the lights off and see each feature, unlike the subpar VHT tint you see people doing on their stock taillights. Did this mainly for style, function is the same. I get what you mean entirely, but if the old man can't see these on a rainy night while pondering something else, he could crash into anyone lol.

Example

Well, there you are, iconic, I was ah getten worried about ya - :(

I was ah feared some old man in a Saturn slammed into the back of you on a dark night on the New Jersey Turnpike - :confused0068: I have no plans on driving in New Jersey, so, you should be safe - :thumbsup:

Good to hear you are OK - :thumbsup:

Have a great new year - :cheers:


humfrz

haha you too