Smoked Tail-Lights Legal in CA?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 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.

I suppose this depends on the level of tinting. I wasn't really thinking anyone was considering blacking out the lens as dark as those examples. These are some headlights sold by FT86speedfactory that are lightly tinted and some tail lights in the video. The tail lights still have an obvious visible red, which is compliant, and these lenses come like this. A cop can write a person up for anything they want, even if the cop is wrong, but I have to believe the basic rights of innocent until proven guilt applies.

CVC 26104 states:

(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.

(b) The department may at any time request from the manufacturer a copy of the test data showing proof of compliance of any device with the requirements established by the department and additional evidence that due care was exercised in maintaining compliance during production.  If the manufacturer fails to provide such proof of compliance within 30 days of notice from the department, the department may prohibit the sale of the device in this state until acceptable proof of compliance is received by the department.

It would seem that it is up to the courts to request this from the manufacture and provide proof of guilt. It shouldn't be a person's job to prove their innocence and assumed to be guilty. Moreover, the section 692 (b) is not quoted correctly by CHP. That section of code applies to headlights that sit at a distance behind fixed grills or transparent covers, in which, the covers don't move out of the way like these. It is too vague to apply to transparent films, UV paint protection coatings, manufactured tint of the polycarbonate lens, etc. Again, a cop can sight you for whatever and you can fight the citation, but maybe this isn't worth the risk:





And, because tail lights was the focus, the tail light needs to only appear red from a distance and not purple or green or any other color, per the law. The law doesn't specify if the tail lamps are a shade of red from a darker or lighter hue, only that it is reasonably obvious from 500 feet that there is red, and this is actually something that appears to only be specified for darkness, referring to the lamp when illuminated and not the housing. Here is the CVC and here are two OEM lights with minimal red (WRX STI and Prius):

24600. 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:

[x808drifter]

In the end the answer to all these threads is "No/Yes? Dependant on Cop."

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

In the end the answer to all these threads is "No/Yes? Dependant on Cop."

Dependent on cop is always the correct answer. With these things, going to court means paying the ticket and then hoping to get a refund in court, if you win. For some people, this is worth the risk. For others, it is not. The reality is that even the cops don't KNOW the law, as I have demonstrated above from that Monterey post, but that won't stop them from writing a ticket if they want. It is their job to enforce the law to the best of their ability. It is the judge's job to interpret the law.

There is a similar topic that is brought up about whether the 3rd brake light is required. The CVC states that a manufacture MAY add a 3rd brake light, but it also states that if it exists, then it needs to be there and functional, but federal law says it must exist, so cars will have them. Now, the interesting thing is that the 3rd brake light is mandatory, and yet, CVC allows the use of limo tint on the rear window of passenger cars, which would seem to nullify the effectiveness of this light, except it really doesn't because a red light will show up perfectly well behind limo tint when in use, and that is all they care about.

The law seems pretty clear that the tail lamps are about performance of their duties to warn and signal other drivers when activated. They don't specify their use when not activated. If they did, that would be like requiring seat belts to be worn when the car is not operational.