Clear or smoked side markers?
 

Hi guys. I'm interested in getting some new side markers because the stock ones look terrible, but I'm not sure if I should get clear or smoked ones.
I've got a whiteout FR-S, and it will have Valenti SB tails, HID headlights, LED turn signals, and eventually I'd like to get some smoked headlights. Any advice on the markers would be appreciated. I plan to get them with white lights. I think the smoked ones might be nice to match the rest once I get the headlights, but that may not be any time soon.

i say go clear for now.. if you don't like them, you can always throw on a few shades of Night shade if ya want...

Clear

I vote clear.

That's a douchey thing to do. White lights visible to people behind/beside you are annoying. Look forward to people getting pissed off and driving like assholes around you in retaliation.

Or just get amber LEDs. That would be much more considerate to your fellow drivers.

Thank you for the constructive criticism.

Wouldn't getting amber LED's defeat the purpose of changing the lens color? I guess it would look better with the lights off, but I always run with my full lights on, and I dislike the amber color.

IIRC, amber is a required color. Now, should you ever be pulled over for the clear housing, I have argued that the amber bulb meets the Department of Transportation's requirements of amber turning signals.

this (in the USA)

As far as I know, turn signals are legal being white. Besides, these are marker lights. Not turn signals.

Depends on the state. I live in Florida and I have clear housing but you also have to display or reflect an amber color. So i have amber led and it still looks great

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Okay. I'll look into it for here in Ontario.

It's federal law under FMVSS 108 in the US and CMVSS 108 in Canada. Both of them reference SAE J578, which requires side marker lights to be amber.

For once it's not just government overreach. There's actually a reason for it, and that reason is that white light and blue light impair night vision, whereas amber and red do not. If you look at a red light and then into a dark area, your ability to make out detail is much better than if you look at a white light. This is why pilots use red lights in their cockpits, so that if they look outside, their night vision is not impaired.

Somewhere along the way this made it into our motor vehicle codes so that drivers are not staring into white lights on cars in front of them, losing their night vision and becoming unable to see threats in dark areas off to the side. Ever notice how annoying and fatiguing it is to ride along behind someone whose rear brake lens is broken? This is why. Even a douchey white side bulb can be enough to impair a driver's night vision, because the driver's eye adjusts to it.

So I'm not all that concerned that it's against the law. I'm against it because it's douchey and annoying to other drivers.

Rear- and side-facing turn signals have to be amber or red. A white side-facing turn signal is douchey.

I should mention that I actually like the clear side markers and eventually plan to put them on my car. But I'll install them with amber bulbs so that I'm not annoying other drivers.

Somebody has a favorite word.

"Rear- and side-facing turn signals have to be amber or red."
It's a marker light. Not a turn signal.

While he was incorrect in calling them turn signals;

Thank you sir. Does that mean my white LED rear turn signals are illegal? I had a feeling they were. They are really bright. :-/

I've got Valenti tails on the way to me, so it won't be an issue for much longer anyway.

Edit: I don't think your quote was talking about turn signals. Never mind.