Quote:
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.