--How To Modify Your Subaru Badge of Ownership--

[BAC5.2]

I can't think of any mods I've done that are blatantly illegal. I am still within federal regulations for bumper height, I have no modified emissions control devices, stopping distance isn't a matter of legality (though my stopping distance is considerably shorter than stock thanks to lighter wheels, better tires, and improved suspension), all of my tint is within state legality (and rearward visibility is enhanced with a rear-view camera to supplement visual checks).

 

When it comes to driving habits, I'm fairly conservative. My car is not a race car, nor will I ever pretend it to be one while on a public road.

[Silinc3r]

So about the badge haha. I was actually thinking about this today. I would never get one because I don't like stickers on the paint and barely like stickers on the windows. I do however like what you did to them and really like the Heavy Indus. emblem, nice touch.

Carry on

[06GRPLGT]

I can't think of any mods I've done that are blatantly illegal. I am still within federal regulations for bumper height, I have no modified emissions control devices, stopping distance isn't a matter of legality (though my stopping distance is considerably shorter than stock thanks to lighter wheels, better tires, and improved suspension), all of my tint is within state legality (and rearward visibility is enhanced with a rear-view camera to supplement visual checks).

 

When it comes to driving habits, I'm fairly conservative. My car is not a race car, nor will I ever pretend it to be one while on a public road.

 

I was actually surprised to hear that you're 100% legal. Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone. Feel free to harass me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So about the badge haha. I was actually thinking about this today. I would never get one because I don't like stickers on the paint and barely like stickers on the windows. I do however like what you did to them and really like the Heavy Indus. emblem, nice touch.

Carry on

Yeah, I do worry about the paint fade thing, so I'm not sure how long I'll leave it on there. Thx for the kind words.

[06GRPLGT]

The law, as I've found it, states the following, "S5.1.3 No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." It would appear that this means any cover of any kind is illegal.

 

Technically my tails are painted. Is paint considered "motor vehicle equipment"? Is window tint considered "equipment"?

[BAC5.2]

the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 5.3.2.1 states:

 

each lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square centimeter of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp

[06GRPLGT]

I read through some of the parts that talked about obstructions. It listed things like trailers and racks. That's the crazy thing about the law...it's always confusing and open to interpretation. If I were cited, good lawyers could argue both sides in court.

[BAC5.2]

I read through some of the parts that talked about obstructions. It listed things like trailers and racks. That's the crazy thing about the law...it's always confusing and open to interpretation. If I were cited' date=' good lawyers could argue both sides in court.[/quote']

 

It's not confusing. Obstruct is defined as "to block from sight" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obstruct)

 

You can argue all you want, but paint on your tail lights is an obstruction. "Yea, but you can kind of see through the paint" is not a defense.

 

5.3.2.1 doesn't actually stipulate trailers and racks. That's under heading 5.3.2.a. 5.3.2.1 is under sub-heading b, and includes obstructions.

 

another section of the code (regarding vehicle carriers) further stipulates:

 

Lamps and reflective devices/material required by this subpart must not be obscured by the tailboard, or by any part of the load, or its covering by dirt, or other added vehicle or work equipment, or otherwise

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=5dfc66df52aefe3d910987616bc0ae64&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:5.1.1.2.36.2.12.1&idno=49

 

"or otherwise" covers paint and tinting films. I can find where this is directly listed pertaining to passenger vehicles, if you really want.

 

The bottom line is that there are requirements for stop-light intensity. The burden to prove that your painted tail lights conform to those requirements is on you. You've modified them, and it is your responsibility to ensure they comply with the law.

 

The short story - Painting your tail lights, or otherwise obstructing them, is illegal.

[06GRPLGT]

With all due respect, you have too much time on your hands

 

With that said, I do appreciate the info.

 

I think I'm going to consider myself content with mine being visible beyond 500 feet. If I get bored, I might measure out 500 feet and take some pictures of my car next to one of my un-tinted cars for comparison. Not to be argumentative, but more for experimental purposes and conversation. Might do a reflectivity comparison too. I'm sure there'll be a difference, but I'm curious how much.

[BAC5.2]

It took all of 5 minutes to re-find all of that stuff. I've posted it before.

 

The plainly visible from 500 feet law is, I believe, reserved for vehicles produced prior to the FMVSS108 compliance requirement. I don't remember exactly what sub-section it mentions that in, though.

 

You can consider yourself content with whatever you want. Just know that it's illegal regardless of your level of personal contentedness.

[06GRPLGT]

It's also illegal to go 1mph over the speed limit. Just sayin'

[BAC5.2]

Yes it is. And I can admit that.

 

You seem to have a problem admitting that your tail lights are illegal.

 

[Grimmrican]

It's also illegal to go 1mph over the speed limit. Just sayin'

 

Speed limit is also just a "suggestion". Not saying its cool to drive fast or it's safe. Just saying. Of course there will be consequences if ur caught speeding.

[06GRPLGT]

Yes it is. And I can admit that.

 

You seem to have a problem admitting that your tail lights are illegal.

 

 

I don't mean to sound stubborn (because I'm actually one to quickly admit when I'm wrong), but I don't entirely buy into your interpretation of the code, as it may or may not pertain to a thin, translucent film over my lenses. I'll concede that Federal safety guidelines can be interpreted to seemingly indicate tint as an illegal "obstruction" or "cover", but I am definitely not convinced that a thin layer of paint can be absolutely, positively categorized as such. I genuinely believe that the luminescence and reflectivity of my specific tail lamps are still within safe and legal specification.

 

When I shine a flashlight on my unlit lenses, the reflectors can still be easily seen from a great distance (tried this last night), and when they are lit, the same is true. Because I'm intrigued by this, I then went out this morning and looked at my brake lights during the day, and they are EASILY visible from beyond 500 feet. On this newish vehicle, they're still seriously bright...much more so than slightly older vehicles with stock lenses.

 

I obviously recognize that my reflectors would be even more reflective had I not done tint, and that the luminescence of them would certainly be better and safer as well, but this is a conversation of what is or is not legal. You could call me a douche for jeopardizing the safety of those around me by "reducing the effectiveness" of a safety feature on my vehicle, but as I said before, I'm still not convinced that I'm breaking the law.

 

On a side note, coming from a family of lawyers (and having take a couple law classes as part of my business major) I've come to understand that the law is often written obscurely and left open-enough for interpretation such that people of means or position can always find a way around it, while the poor and uneducated can be easily oppressed. I know that can sound like a stretch to some, or a conspiracy theory, but it's something I believe. It's also way off topic, but I'm mentioning it to maybe lend support to the whole interpretation thing.

 

With all that said, I do appreciate your input and I've learned a lot from this conversation.

[mustangendsley]

I bet you could mask them off and use plasti dip and not hastel with taking things apart and use a sharp knife to score the edges. That would take about 10 min to do, just saying. But looks cool. I wont get on the tail light conversation.

[06GRPLGT]

^^^ Makes sense. I'm curious to see what that looks like.

[BAC5.2]

I don't mean to sound stubborn (because I'm actually one to quickly admit when I'm wrong), but I don't entirely buy into your interpretation of the code, as it may or may not pertain to a thin, translucent film over my lenses. I'll concede that Federal safety guidelines can be interpreted to seemingly indicate tint as an illegal "obstruction" or "cover", but I am definitely not convinced that a thin layer of paint can be absolutely, positively categorized as such. I genuinely believe that the luminescence and reflectivity of my specific tail lamps are still within safe and legal specification.

 

When I shine a flashlight on my unlit lenses, the reflectors can still be easily seen from a great distance (tried this last night), and when they are lit, the same is true. Because I'm intrigued by this, I then went out this morning and looked at my brake lights during the day, and they are EASILY visible from beyond 500 feet. On this newish vehicle, they're still seriously bright...much more so than slightly older vehicles with stock lenses.

 

I obviously recognize that my reflectors would be even more reflective had I not done tint, and that the luminescence of them would certainly be better and safer as well, but this is a conversation of what is or is not legal. You could call me a douche for jeopardizing the safety of those around me by "reducing the effectiveness" of a safety feature on my vehicle, but as I said before, I'm still not convinced that I'm breaking the law.

 

On a side note, coming from a family of lawyers (and having take a couple law classes as part of my business major) I've come to understand that the law is often written obscurely and left open-enough for interpretation such that people of means or position can always find a way around it, while the poor and uneducated can be easily oppressed. I know that can sound like a stretch to some, or a conspiracy theory, but it's something I believe. It's also way off topic, but I'm mentioning it to maybe lend support to the whole interpretation thing.

 

With all that said, I do appreciate your input and I've learned a lot from this conversation.

 

If dirt obscuring a lens classifies as an obstruction, paint certainly falls within the "or other" category.

 

You can believe whatever you want. You've reduced visibility of your car at night, you've put other people at risk. You've illegally modified safety components of your vehicle.

 

There is the letter of the law, which you arguably violate. "Obstruct" is a pretty definite term. Paint over a light is an obstruction, moreso than something easily removable like dirt. The "500 foot rule" does not apply to your vehicle, so continuing to cite it as evidence of legal compliance is a moot point.

 

The letter of the law that you absolutely violate is what also is indicated throughout the transportation section of the code of federal regulations and the FMVSS108 document it references; Items are certified in single instance only. Modification at the end-user level nullifies the SAE compliance of that item, which makes that item illegal. The tail light was cleared for SAE compliance as it was delivered. It is no longer compliant when you apply paint to it. Clearing or blacking out headlights is, by letter, illegal. Even if the light still complies with the nuances of FMVSS108 with respect to output and function, modification of a compliant part nullifies it's compliance, and all light sources on a street-going vehicle MUST be compliant with regulations set forth by the SAE.

 

In fact, even if you submitted to testing for illumination intensity and reflectivity and passed, the lights would be required to be certified compliant with SAE regulations in their end-use form.

 

There is also the intent of the law. Of this, you undoubtedly violate.

[06GRPLGT]

Would you mind pointing me toward the section on dirt?

 

And now that you mention it again and I've had some time to think about it, you're right...having modified an SAE compliant safety device has, indeed, made my tail lights technically illegal. I do still believe that a good attorney could easily find a way around it in court though.

 

The parts about modifications say something about how, if you do modify them, you must then be re-certified. This tells me that I should be able to get them re-certified. Any idea how one might go about doing that? I may have to look into this out of spite

[thefultonhow]

The parts about modifications say something about how' date=' if you do modify them, you must then be re-certified. This tells me that I should be able to get them re-certified. Any idea how one might go about doing that? I may have to look into this out of spite [/quote']

 

I would laugh so hard if you tried to get them recertified and ended up with a ticket instead.

[06GRPLGT]

^^^ I thought about that. Or, if I didn't pass and didn't necessarily get a ticket, there might then be documentation that I'm knowingly using an illegal modification.

[BAC5.2]

I posted the link in post 57. Cops cite that reg frequently to mud caked trucks.

 

You would need to go to an SAE clearing house, and submit for a new SAE compliance number. If I had to guess, I'd expect a 3-6 month lead time and costs in the tens of thousands. It's not something you can have done at a local garage, and it'll cost you the same amount regardless of whether you pass or not.

[06GRPLGT]

Well there goes my plan

 

 

"Lamps and reflective devices/material required by this subpart must not be obscured by the tailboard, or by any part of the load, or its covering by dirt, or other added vehicle or work equipment, or otherwise."

 

A tailboard, load, or mud can block light up to 100%, so this leads me to the definition of "obscure".

 

This seems to be the most fitting definition of obscure from dictionary.com

"indistinct to the sight or any other sense; not readily seen, heard, etc.; faint."

 

One could argue that my reflectors and lights are still distinct and readily seen.

[thefultonhow]

so this leads me to the definition of "obscure".

 

This seems to be the most fitting definition of obscure from dictionary.com

"indistinct to the sight or any other sense; not readily seen, heard, etc.; faint."

 

One could argue that my reflectors and lights are still distinct and readily seen.

 

They could also be considered "faint":

 

Lacking brightness

Lacking clarity or distinctness

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faint

 

Give it up. Your tail light tint is illegal, period. Whether or not it obscures the light too much is open for debate, but whether it's illegal really isn't.

[BAC5.2]

"By any part of the load..." Would indicate that partially obscured still falls under obscuring. Your paint doesn't 100% obscure the lens, but it partially does.

 

Plus the SAE/DOT compliance issue.

 

Still illegal.

[Somerandomguy175]

Ahh I see I'm not the only one who gets harassed about tinted tails...Eek tough crowd

[06GRPLGT]

They could also be considered "faint":

 

Lacking brightness

Lacking clarity or distinctness

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faint

 

I could also argue that it's not considered faint.

 

 

"By any part of the load..." Would indicate that partially obscured still falls under obscuring. Your paint doesn't 100% obscure the lens, but it partially does.

I don't necessarily agree with this logic. Part of a load would be blocking 100% of the area it blocks.

 

 

Plus the SAE/DOT compliance issue.

 

Still illegal.

I had some time to think about this some more. While I agree that the simple fact that -I modified them without re-certification- makes them illegal, this brought me back to comparison with other much more common modifications. On modern vehicles, hundreds of parts on any vehicle can fall under the umbrella of SAE certification.

 

 

You said the following earlier, "clearing or blacking out headlights is, by letter, illegal. Even if the light still complies with the nuances of FMVSS108 with respect to output and function, modification of a compliant part nullifies it's compliance"

 

You then later stated, "I can't think of any mods I've done that are blatantly illegal. I am still within federal regulations for bumper height..."

 

By your logic, lowering your vehicle has "modified" the SAE certified accident safety requirements of your vehicle, so without re-certification, you're a "menace" to everyone around you. I don't mean to sound malicious here, but should I expect to see your arguments in every thread about lowering and headlight clearing as well, including threads about your own car?