I Donated thefultonhow Posted May 25, 2012 I Donated Share Posted May 25, 2012 ^ I understand that, I'm not saying it doest restrict the light output in some way but I think it lets more out than it lets in. Once again, not physically possible (unless it's reflective, which is a whole different ballgame). I mean with window tint just because it's limo and you can't see into the car doesn't mean that the person inside can't see out, it's just not as bright looking out as it would be with no tint. Think about what you're saying here. You can't see into a car with no illumination inside, but you can see the bright daylight outside when you're in the dark car. Ever looked in a window from outside at night? Ever looked out a window from inside? This isn't an issue of light transmitting better from one direction than another. This is an issue of more light on one side than the other. 35% of a lot of light is more light than 35% of a much smaller amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superscooby Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 You are just now realizing there are people smarter then you? If you were looking for a vote on film or spray, why didn't you create a pole? Don't make any more threads since they are pointless. a pointless topic that has generated 6 pages of conversation by what appears to be the most intelligent people in the world (according to them) Ha! once again... thanks for all the support from the forum here. all the haters can go join the subiegirl forum, although they may claw your eyes out over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAC5.2 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 OK, I'm a glutton for punishment and will keep this alive. I think the point that's being missed very very badly here is that a "normal" level of tail light tint does NOT impeded people's vision of your brakes in any real measurable way. It just makes them look darker when not lit. You are wrong. Should all car manufacturers have to make all brake lights output an ideal, equal amount of light to be noticed for them to be safe. Yes. And they do. Because that is federal law. And BTW how would it...delay...your seeing the lights anyway as someone said?? lol Does dimmer light travel slower than the speed of light???? Intensity. Dim light is less intense than bright light. If you were standing in a completely black room, and two lights flashed at the same time. A dim red light off to the left, and a bright red light off to the right, where would you look first? Tint, which I know you don't understand, reduces the intensity of the light. Bare minimum, by changing the wavelength of the light output you are bumping "red" away from the set of wavelengths that the SAE define as "red". So the person who posted WA state law, which the OP thanked, proved locally that tinted lights are illegal on the state level. You can continue to argue that they aren't dangerous or illegal, but you'll still be wrong. Oh yea...One small detail that's being totally missed. The third brake light in the rear window and spoiler that isn't modified. Cool, so the brake indicators on the vehicle will be 1/3 legal. Still enough to get you in plenty of trouble, should you get rear-ended. [URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/proper-flip-key-interesti-159894.html"]Flip Key Development Thread[/URL] "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - E. Hubbard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssbtech Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Ever notice how the LED tail lights of newer cars get your attention more easily? It's because of the instant-on properties of LEDs. Standard lamps take much longer (I know we're talking milliseconds here, but the difference is substantial) to achieve full brightness. By tinting the tails you're not only reducing the light output at full brightness, but also the amount of light output during the warm up to full brightness, therefore effectively increasing the amount of time it takes before you see the light. One also needs to take into consideration the amount of ambient sunlight and the reflectivity of the tint film under various lighting conditions. It's one think to look at the back of your car in the driveway and say "oh, that looks fine" when your friend presses the brake pedal, but it's another out in the real world under varying conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocHolladay23 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I'm going to stop trying to explain what I mean because I obviously suck at it [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] You want stickers? Hit me up here!!! You want a shirt? Hit me up here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blklgt05 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I personally dig light-smoke on the taillight and I don't think it hurts the brightness by a whole lot. I'm still debating on whether I should do it or not to my LGT, but I think as long as you have a 3rd/center LED braking light, you should be fine. Do it OP, do what makes you happy. YOLO! mod journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blklgt05 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 As long as police can see the reflectors on the taillight, you should be fine. I had smoked taillights on my 4th gen for a few years, it was nice. I think light smoke would be much better. mod journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssbtech Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 As long as police can see the reflectors on the taillight, you should be fine. "should" be fine? As long as they can see the reflectors? I'm trying to understand what part of the applicable motor vehicle standards that says no tint can be applied to the tail lights reads as "if cops can see the reflectors, you should be fine".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskiTrombone Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I don't think anyone here is arguing that the tint should be fine for anybody to see the tail lights. That's not the problem at all. The problem is you are "automatically" guilty if someone rear ends you. Whereas, it is the other way around without any sort of tint on the taillights. It looks cool though, put them on and just cross your fingers. We are talking a 1% chance you get rear ended anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssbtech Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I'm curious to see any regulation or case law on "guilty if rear-ended" with tinted tails. Not saying I don't believe it, but I have a hard time believing it. Brake lights or not, if you're getting too close to the car in front of you, back off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskiTrombone Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 You'd have to look at each state law. I don't think it's at a federal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeRib Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 ^^^what a d!ck. guess i've just been lucky. Here in PA it's totally at the cop's discretion even though the law is 70% Correct. A lot of cops in PA don't bother. I only do when I can see that its really dark. Clarification: PA law says that window tint must allow for 70% light transmission. Meaning that 70% of outside light must be able to pass through the window. Basically, your car comes from the factory at the legal limit in PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blklgt05 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 "should" be fine? As long as they can see the reflectors? I'm trying to understand what part of the applicable motor vehicle standards that says no tint can be applied to the tail lights reads as "if cops can see the reflectors, you should be fine".... I'm in socal, everything is illegal. If you're scared to do anything, then just don't do anything. If OP wants to tint his taillight, let him do it and be happy. My 4 gen lgt had smoked taillight for a while, I got rear ended, that lady's insurance paid for all the repairs. Cop saw my car, didn't say anything. mod journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSniper Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 I have tinted taillights, but since I upgraded by bulbs to very bright LED ones, there is actually no change in the brightness level (I tried this while I was swapping taillights from my 2.5i to my LGT so I had one of each type on the same car) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2baru Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Delta would you mind posting up the bulbs you used when you made that switch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmoe Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 You are wrong. Yes. And they do. Because that is federal law. Intensity. Dim light is less intense than bright light. If you were standing in a completely black room, and two lights flashed at the same time. A dim red light off to the left, and a bright red light off to the right, where would you look first? Tint, which I know you don't understand, reduces the intensity of the light. Bare minimum, by changing the wavelength of the light output you are bumping "red" away from the set of wavelengths that the SAE define as "red". So the person who posted WA state law, which the OP thanked, proved locally that tinted lights are illegal on the state level. You can continue to argue that they aren't dangerous or illegal, but you'll still be wrong. Cool, so the brake indicators on the vehicle will be 1/3 legal. Still enough to get you in plenty of trouble, should you get rear-ended. I will argue that they aren't (measurably) dangerous, because I really don't believe they are. I cannot argue the law because I know it's illegal. Enough quoting the law already, we are talking about if they are "too" dim to be effective when tinted. I never argued it's not illegal. But it's a dumb law, like a LOT of motor vehicle regulations anyway...just like window tint if you ask me. You can live your life worrying about every possible scenario that you may get sued, but I won't. Have you ever driven faster than 55? That's taking a really big risk of getting into an accident..and them knowing you were speeding..and you getting sued you know, stop it. It's the LAW. Look newer cars have MUCH brighter more noticeable tail lights than older cars. Why oh why can we STILL drive older cars??? OMG their tail lights are so hard to see!! Get them all off the road before everyone rear ends them. You can keep trying to tell us that a dimmer light somehow travels slower than the speed of light if you want to but you should stick to the laws not science I think. Sure, a brighter light is...brighter, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't notice the dimmer one at all, or enough to know it's lit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAC5.2 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 I will argue that they aren't (measurably) dangerous, because I really don't believe they are. I cannot argue the law because I know it's illegal. Enough quoting the law already, we are talking about if they are "too" dim to be effective when tinted. I never argued it's not illegal. But it's a dumb law, like a LOT of motor vehicle regulations anyway...just like window tint if you ask me. You can live your life worrying about every possible scenario that you may get sued, but I won't. Have you ever driven faster than 55? That's taking a really big risk of getting into an accident..and them knowing you were speeding..and you getting sued you know, stop it. It's the LAW. Look newer cars have MUCH brighter more noticeable tail lights than older cars. Why oh why can we STILL drive older cars??? OMG their tail lights are so hard to see!! Get them all off the road before everyone rear ends them. You can keep trying to tell us that a dimmer light somehow travels slower than the speed of light if you want to but you should stick to the laws not science I think. Sure, a brighter light is...brighter, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't notice the dimmer one at all, or enough to know it's lit. I never said that "dim light travels slower than the speed of light" You can argue all you want, you'll still be wrong. I'd be happy to school you in science any day, junior. [URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/proper-flip-key-interesti-159894.html"]Flip Key Development Thread[/URL] "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - E. Hubbard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmx045 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 i must say, BAC really does know this science quite well. and what? dimmer light travels slower than speed of light? NO. the speed of light always remains the same, it's the spreading of elements over a period of distance is what causes it to be "dim" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmoe Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I never said that "dim light travels slower than the speed of light" You can argue all you want, you'll still be wrong. I'd be happy to school you in science any day, junior. The speed of light comment was a comment about LEDs being noticed faster that someone else had said, thought it was you, was not. Sorry. It's not a right or wrong statement. I know it's illegal and that you can get sued, I said that a while back. What I am saying is that different cars already have a different light output of the tail lights. Soooo.... if the exact perfect amount of light is so incredibly important to your tail lights being noticed. Why isn't everyone crashing into each other because their lights are not a "standard" light output?? Because like I said before.... newer cars with LEDs are much much more noticeable and bright than cars without LEDs. And older cars with little tiny lights or no third brake light or just shitty quality lenses are much less noticeable than newer cars. Yet people still manage to drive around and not constantly crash into each other because the light output isn't the same or ideal and sue the shit out of each other every day. What I'm getting at is that I believe it's pointless to avoid tinting your tail lights (not black out) according to your logic. Is it possible to get rear ended and sued and tail light tint complicate that in some very specific scenarios? Yes it's possible. Should anyone worry about it causing any real measurable problem for them. No, not at all. More get struck by lightning every year than have issues arrising from tail light tint causing an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saigon78 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I contacted my insurance broker my family has been with for 50+ years and asked them. They said if I was to have tail light tint and someone rear ended me it would still be their fault as they were following too close. The police and court follow the law of "As long as the tail light can be seen from 150 metres (450 feet) away during sunrise or sunset it is legal." In some areas the law is "Any covering of the tail light is illegal." In some areas owners need the auto registering office to agree it's legal and in some areas they measure the brightness with a tool. An alternative and rally inspired look that doesn't completely cover the tail light is this. http://www.flyeyeskit.co.uk/ It's not as cut and dry as "If you tint your tail lights you will die." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssbtech Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 An alternative and rally inspired look that doesn't completely cover the tail light is this. http://www.flyeyeskit.co.uk/ Nothing legal about those either. If they're tinted, they're reducing the light output. Ok, let's ask the question another way: What are the benefits of reducing my tail lamp's light output? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saigon78 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Nothing legal about those either. If they're tinted, they're reducing the light output. The law differs from city, state, province, territory, country, etc. Where those tints are manufactured it was to have a tinted look while being legal. Ok, let's ask the question another way: What are the benefits of reducing my tail lamp's light output? Dumb question that's not a benefit it is a drawback of having tinted tails. No benefit to reducing your tail light output but for some people its not a relevant concern and they are willing to take the risk involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted May 30, 2012 I Donated Share Posted May 30, 2012 Dumb question that's not a benefit it is a drawback of having tinted tails. Actually, it's not a dumb question. By definition, tint reduces light transmissibility. So if you tint your tails, the primary objective effect is to reduce light output from them, even if your stated goal is just to make the car look cooler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillboy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Reduced functionality is usually the price of increased coolness. It is still ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated Too laff79 Posted May 30, 2012 I Donated Too Share Posted May 30, 2012 Reduced coolness is usually the price of increased functionality. wut nao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.