|
Author
|
Topic: law against tinting taillights????
|
MikeD.
¯
Member # 8060
|
posted
 
 
I forgot about my Bronco. I never had any problems, even my headlights were tinted right before I.. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) sold her.. Sad day that was.
--------------------
1999 FRC Vette
12.77 @ 110
Posts: 2854 | From: Vacaville Ca, 707 | Registered: Nov 2007
| :
|
|
2000BlackGT
Loyalty
Member # 283
|
posted
Man, wouldn't that be awesome if people who ACTUALLY know the answers post them, and even offer some FACTS to back it up instead of just using things they heard from their uncle. If someone has some more FACTS they can post up that either clear the information more or refute the answers I have from the CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE that would be great.
Here is the vehicle code for tail lights:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24600.htm
(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.
Here is the vehicle code for brake lights:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24603.htm
All stoplamps shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime,
Now unfortunately they wrote this little doozy which is what makes it illegal:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26101.htm
26101. No person shall sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle, nor shall any person use upon a vehicle, any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104. This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935, or to lamps installed on authorized emergency vehicles.
26104. (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.
Posts: 2833 | From: Chico, CA | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
^^^^ your the man. I get so sick of idiots offering opinions as facts. Tech talk is a prime example.
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6940 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
AbominableSnoman...
¯
Member # 8290
|
posted
ive had my magnum murdered out before, and just like tinted front windows, you CAN get away with it (depending on the officers mood) but yes it is illegal. i finally got in trouble for it, and it turned out to be a $10 fix it ticket. supposedly the biggest concern is not being able to see the brake lights bright enough, and also the reflector isnt visible.
--------------------
"I aint no crip, but i bleed blue..."
Posts: 1348 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Mar 2008
| :
|
|
SFvert
Drama kids have no place here
Member # 3965
|
posted
--------------------
R.I.P. 89 LX Sold the 90 Vert,
I bring the Amber Lamps!!!
[IMG]http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/53/Epicbeardmanwin.jpg[/IMG]
Posts: 3706 | From: the city by the bay | Registered: Jan 2004
| :
|
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
