Another taillight tint question

[CosworthRS]

Well this morning on my way to work, I nearly got pulled over for speeding, instead the cop drove up to my window at a light and told me about my tints not being legal. But he also explained to my why, said that the lights have a reflector on them and that needs to be seen at all times. Then he explained why cars like Lexus's have reflectors on the bumpers since the lights dont dont have reflectors.

My question is, can i put some reflectors on my bumper and keep the tints?

(i was expected to get pulled over for speeding.. but he didnt do anything other then what i said up top)

 

[mswaim]

I would really like to help you, but I don't have a clue..........try posting your question again; it's just too confusing at this point.

 

[STG]

California Vehicle Code

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:

(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with one or more taillamps.

(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle, manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1958, shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps, except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, which are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one taillamp which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the vehicles. If a vehicle is equipped with two taillamps, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).

(c) Every vehicle or vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles, subject to subdivision (a) of Section 22406 shall be equipped with not less than two taillamps.

(d) When two taillamps are required, at least one shall be mounted at the left and one at the right side respectively at the same level.

(e) Taillamps shall be red in color and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear.

(f) Taillamps on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 72 inches, except that a tow truck, in addition to being equipped with the required taillamps, may also be equipped with two taillamps which may be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than the maximum allowable vehicle height and as far forward as the rearmost portion of the driver's seat in the rearmost position. The additional taillamps on a tow truck shall be lighted whenever the headlamps are lighted.
Amended Ch. 924, Stats. 1988. Effective January 1, 1989.

 

[CosworthRS]

well that answers that, thanks.

 

[mswaim]

I'm not sure it answers your question or not. If your taillights with the tinted covers in place are visible from 1,000 feet when braking or when the taillamp is activated during hours of darkness then you are fine. The fact they weaken the built-in reflector is not an issue, since they are not mandated under the 24600 section.


VCV section 24607. Every vehicle subject to registration under this code shall at all times be equipped with red reflectors mounted on the rear as
follows: (a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with at least one reflector so
maintained as to be plainly visible at night from all distances
within 350 to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of the
lawful upper headlamp beams.


So - if you wish to mount a single reflector on the rear of your vehicle to augment the ones covered by the tinted covers, you are fine under the vehicle code; as long as the tail light/brake lights can be seen clearly for 1,000 feet.

 

[STG]

Regardless of the vehicle code, I wouldn't alter tail, stop, head or turn lights from factory OEM simply for liability reasons.

If I'm involved in a serious accident, even if the other guy rams into my car from behind, I do not want some attorney finding out I tinted my lights regardless if they theoretically still meet the letter of the law.

If injury or death is involved, I'll do not want to wind up on the stand explaining why I decided to reduce the visibility of my tail/stop lights from factory stock. You can bet the attorney for the estate of the deceased will hire a company like Failure Analysis in El Segundo, CA to prove the reduction in light visibility contributed to the death of the moron who decided to commit suicide by hitting my car from behind.

Exactly how to you measure "plainly visible from 1,000 ft."? I don't want a jury to decide.

Could the deceased have safely stopped if my taillight visibility wasn't reduced by 23%?

Why did I reduce the visibility of my taillights? Because I think it looks cool????

California is a strict liability state. That may not mean much if you don't own anything and have 5 years to go on your car loan. If you own your own home, vehicles, etc. It means $500,000 liability and a $2 million umbrella might not be enough.

 

[STG]

Double post.

 

[mswaim]

Regardless of the vehicle code, I wouldn't alter tail, stop, head or turn lights from factory OEM simply for liability reasons.

If I'm involved in a serious accident, even if the other guy rams into my car from behind, I do not want some attorney finding out I tinted my lights regardless if they theoretically still meet the letter of the law.

If injury or death is involved, I'll do not want to wind up on the stand explaining why I decided to reduce the visibility of my tail/stop lights from factory stock. You can bet the attorney for the estate of the deceased will hire a company like Failure Analysis in El Segundo, CA to prove the reduction in light visibility contributed to the death of the moron who decided to commit suicide by hitting my car from behind.

Exactly how to you measure "plainly visible from 1,000 ft."? I don't want a jury to decide.

Could the deceased have safely stopped if my taillight visibility wasn't reduced by 23%?

Why did I reduce the visibility of my taillights? Because I think it looks cool????

California is a strict liability state. That may not mean much if you don't own anything and have 5 years to go on your car loan. If you own your own home, vehicles, etc. It means $500,000 liability and a $2 million umbrella might not be enough.

Bottom line is - if they meet the letter of the law; he is in the clear legally. That was his question and that was my answer.

Now, would he be safe in the civil arena - ???? Your guess is as good as mine, however I think it is quite a stretch to think that under our strict liability statutes you could stack blame from a rear end collision resulting in death to the lens covers since the vehicle code places liability on anyone who trails so closely they cannot stop in time to avoid said collision.

Even if the lights are visible for only 300 feet one could argue that the blame falls to the trailing vehicle who did not leave a sufficient stopping distance, taking into consideration the reflectors were there to supplement the lighting as mandated in the code. There is case law to support blame to following too closely in cases where the lead vehicles tail lights failed completely. Sh*t happens, that is why the require the reflectors.

I'm assuming your kidding with the Failure Analysis jab, since there are a hundred firms better-suited for such a situation. And for every expert who works in that field, there are just as many who work on the defense side.

Again; he asked a specific question and I provided an accurate answer based on existing law. he did not ask for speculation concerning his civil liability - however he now has both.

 

[STG]

Here's a question:

What meets the letter of the law? Please define "plainly visible from 1,000 ft."

Based on my understanding of strict liability, it's a question of what percentage - if any - the jury assigns to the defendant.

P.S.: Based on the OP's initial post, your subsequent post and mine, nobody's quite sure what the OP wanted to know!:dancenana:

 

[LostRacer]

It looks like the leo informed him that him tinting his tail lights covered the stock reflectors. To rectify the issue the OP is asking if he can add a reflector on the back of his car so as to keep his tail lights tinted. It doesn't sound like lighting was the issue. Just the reflective surface.

I have covers over my tail lights, however the surface behind the lenses is reflective. I've yet to have any issues with CHP or local PD. I had head light covers as well and they covered the reflectors on the front. I added reflective tape to make up for it and was never bothered for them.