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

[BAC5.2]

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

 

And if you look at average output, a load blocking 100% of 75% of the luminous/reflective area leaves 25% still exposed. You can arrange the numbers how you want to represent the effective area you would have to block completely to reduce average output to what your painted tails allow.

 

You can bicker both sides, and invariably your tail lights are still illegal. You violate both the intent and the letter of the law.

 

 

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.

 

That isn't how it works. SAE/DOT compliance is not an umbrella. Lighting fixtures requires DOT compliance markings which post-modification nullifies. There is no such requirement for something like a replacement strut or spring or bushing. Those items go wholly unregulated as long as you remain within the global class guidelines for crash safety set by the DOT and NHTSA (bumper height and impact speed ratings, and the like).

 

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?

 

Incorrect. The regulations fall within global class minimum/maximum allowances, not part or vehicle specific.

 

Your logic would suggest required recertification of a car if you were carrying a heavy load that lowered ride height. Clearly that isn't the case.

 

On my vehicle, I have not stepped outside the bounds imposed by the vehicle class requirements with regards to crash safety. My car sits almost exactly on-level with a stock LGT wagon, in fact.

 

It's nice that you finally admit that your tail lights are illegal, though.

[Somerandomguy175]

if granny cant see that while riding my butt going down the road then it being 100x brighter wont make a difference....parking lights only on in that picture

[Somerandomguy175]

on the topic of rules and laws and whatnot....just quoting the forum rules and regulations here "5. Please stay on topic with your posts. If you want to say something that is not relevant to the post you are reading, this is a good reason to start a new thread. Mods are instructed to monitor for off-topic (OT) posts and get them back on track. Doing this shows respect for the members who posted the original thread - no hijacks please." have some respect?

[BAC5.2]

on the topic of rules and laws and whatnot....just quoting the forum rules and regulations here "5. Please stay on topic with your posts. If you want to say something that is not relevant to the post you are reading, this is a good reason to start a new thread. Mods are instructed to monitor for off-topic (OT) posts and get them back on track. Doing this shows respect for the members who posted the original thread - no hijacks please." have some respect?

 

But then that means that the OP hijacked his own thread?

[Somerandomguy175]

no you were the first to post off topic....

[laff79]

[BAC5.2]

 

+1

[Somerandomguy175]

Did you clear coat the badge? I also think the Plasti-Dip would of been a good option if you ever want to go back to the silver for whatever reason

[06GRPLGT]

I think this one has ran it's course. I conceded that my tint is "illegal" by federal technicality (which I really think is a stretch), but I see it as being no worse than failing to begin signaling 200 feet before a turn. Because I am still perfectly visible in traffic (if someone seriously can't see my car, they're the menace, not me), I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone who runs into the back of my car. And mark my words, if they tried to argue that they couldn't see me, I guarantee I'd win in court.

 

Taking every opportunity to tell people to remove their tint because you don't agree with it just makes you self-righteous, IMHO.

[thefultonhow]

Because I am still perfectly visible in traffic (if someone seriously can't see my car' date=' they're the menace, not me), I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone who runs into the back of my car. And mark my words, if they tried to argue that they couldn't see me, I guarantee I'd win in court.[/quote']

 

Good luck with that.

[BAC5.2]

I don't see any technicality. It's pretty explicitly illegal, violating both letter and intent. Even your definition argument regarding "obstruct" and "faint" fails the acid test. It's plainly clear that your intent in painting your lights was to reduce their output (you said so yourself early in this thread when you listed the reason for tinting was so that your brake lights weren't brighter than your tinted 3rd brake light).

 

we matched the brightness of the taillights to that of the 3rd brake light through 35% tint... and I don't have one light brighter or darker than the others.

 

You could always call your insurance company and ask them what they think about you having painted over your tail lights so that they wouldn't be brighter than your tinted-over 3rd brake light (which is also illegal, by the way).

[06GRPLGT]

Really? People tint tails when it'll look better than the alternative (in the daylight), not for light output matching. Some people are idiots and use a rattle can and it actually looks worse though. Matter of opinion.

 

I was definitely reluctant to tint them' date=' but if you look at stock tails on a red LGT, it clashes BAD.[/quote']

 

While tinting them for daytime cosmetic purposes with the intention of alleviating the clashing reds, it made the most sense to match the level of tint so that the three lights matched and I wasn't left with one or two of the three being noticeably brighter than the other(s). I didn't tint them so the lights would match; that was a subsequent endeavor.

 

 

You could always call your insurance company and ask them what they think about you exceeding the speed limit on a regular basis, thus endangering the lives of everyone around you. You know it's illegal to exceed the speed limit, right? Menace.

 

 

 

 

DOT states the following:

"To maintain tire safety, purchase new tires that are the same size as the vehicle's original tires or another size recommended by the manufacturer. Look at the tire information placard, the owner's manual, or the sidewall of the tire you are replacing to find this information. If you have any doubt about the correct size to choose, consult with the tire dealer.

 

 

Maybe everyone on the site with wider than stock tire size should call their insurance company to ask what they think about their 9-10" wheels with 255 tires. What a bunch of menaces. Endangering everyone around them. You may be smart enough to go lighter, but 90% of the people on this board aren't, or can't afford a nicer setup. Your reason for telling people to take their tint off is because they're endangering the safety of others on the road, right? Or is it because you enjoy arguing the legality of it because you're good at it from all the practice? Assuming your answer would be the former, shouldn't you then tell everyone else here to undo any modifications they've done that jeopardize the safety of other drivers? When a kid posts about his new 18X9 Rotas with zero offset, or negative camber with tires so stretched the contact patch is dangerously small (and everyone drools over it), shouldn't I expect you to protect people like me who know an effective and safe wheel/tire combo? How about threads showing freeway pulls? How about threads with someone showing off their new exhaust by hitting 60 on their neighborhood street? Shouldn't you be protecting us by calling them out on it? Trust me when I say that I'm not the one you should be worried about.

 

 

You've made the same points over and over, and I acknowledge them.

 

 

 

...and my argument of obstruction failed YOUR "acid test", but that verbiage, as with most legal jargon, is open to interpretation. You should just stick with the argument that I now require re-certification. You've got me there.

[laff79]

I'm sensing some butthurt in all these responses. Just let it go, man.

[thefultonhow]

Assuming your answer would be the former' date=' shouldn't you then tell everyone else here to undo any modifications they've done that jeopardize the safety of other drivers? When a kid posts about his new 18X9 Rotas with zero offset, or negative camber with tires so stretched the contact patch is dangerously small (and everyone drools over it), shouldn't I expect you to protect people like me who know an effective and safe wheel/tire combo? [/quote']

 

I am equally as critical of the "herrafrush" crowd as of those who tint their taillights.

 

How about threads showing freeway pulls? How about threads with someone showing off their new exhaust by hitting 60 on their neighborhood street? Shouldn't you be protecting us by calling them out on it?

 

You've got me there.

[DocHolladay23]

http://www.youplusdallas.com/cityblog/restaurants/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CoalVines11.jpg

[06GRPLGT]

Note: I've seen BAC throw down some impressive knowledge in other threads, so he has my respect. I guess I just don't understand why policing taillight tint is his battle of choice. There are so many other things to harass people about too.

[.Catalyst.]

If those "defending" the use of tail light tint feel there's no harm in it - why put so much effort debating on the forum. Go down to your local police department, ask the officer to inspect your car and if it's legal. If it's legal then have them document it in writing and post a picture of said proof.

 

Otherwise you're interpreting laws towards your bias of a modification you "like". I'm sure on your can of VHT nightshades or whatever the "in" thing is to use for tinting them - there's somewhere on the can that says "for offroad use only".

 

I have $20 I'll pay to the first person who can show valid proof from law enforcement that your tinted tails are legal.

[Somerandomguy175]

[laff79]

If those "defending" the use of tail light tint feel there's no harm in it - why put so much effort debating on the forum.

 

Actually it's more the guys who DON'T like it that make the stink 95% of the time.

 

Mine have 'smoked' overlays on them from Laminex. I realize they're not 'legal', but I have them anyway. My choice.

 

 

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/I%20regret%20nothing/grand/I-regret-nothing-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-1287.gif

[DocHolladay23]

Come, join me laff.

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/have-tinted-tail-lights-193631.html?t=193631

[laff79]

oh, i'm in there already, son

[BAC5.2]

Actually it's more the guys who DON'T like it that make the stink 95% of the time.

 

Mine have 'smoked' overlays on them from Laminex. I realize they're not 'legal', but I have them anyway. My choice.

 

I tend to agree with Catalyst. Those that don't like tail light (and headlight) tint usually just make statements. The debates get dragged on and on by those who attempt to justify their illegal modifications. This thread is proof. There is no mincing words, tint on vehicle lighting is illegal. The OP even admitted it. The argument would have stopped on the first page, had there not been a rebuttal to fact, and a continuing attempt at justification.

 

I agree with your approach. You know they are illegal. You know they pose some risk if you get into an accident. You accept the consequences, and understand what you are doing. Best of all, you don't try and justify your choice by trying to lawyer out of your responsibility. My only complaint, is that they are dangerous outside of your control. I'm not a fan of the looks, but it's not my car. Yours, at least, don't look as bad as some of the other ones I've seen that look almost entirely black.

[thefultonhow]

The only time I really and truly have a huge problem with taillight tint is when it's dark enough that brake lights look like regular taillights (or darker than regular taillights). IMO, that is unsafe and just rude to other drivers on the road. This tint obviously does not qualify. It's illegal, but I don't have a huge problem with it. As noted, I do illegal things too.

[06GRPLGT]

I don't want to drag this on any more than anyone else does, but IMO, the one technicality that BAC came up with wasn't a strong blanket argument. Through our conversation, I learned that there's nothing specific to "tinting" tail lights.

 

Here's my line of thinking. Would a cop care if I tinted my tails 1%? I'm sure we can agree that's a no. How about 10%? The point is that there's no written standard for taillamps like there is on windows. Obviously the guy who sprays something on -such that his light output diminishes to a point of being unsafe- deserves a ticket. I genuinely believe I'm not in that category. Nor would a Laminex film be.

 

Will I go voluntarily subject myself to a ticket? Nah. Would anyone here voluntarily submit to a driving safety test that could potentially end in a ticket if you get something wrong? No. Does that mean you're positively going to fail such a test? Nope.

 

So yes, my tails are "illegal". But so are plenty of other things that we all do. My point is that reasonable tint translucency shouldn't be frowned upon...in the same way that following reasonably-less than a "safe" distance from the car in front of you is looked past. If someone feels the need to interject OT banter about another member's tails, then let that person also be responsible for policing every other "illegal" activity that goes on here.

[BAC5.2]

I didn't come up with a technicality. It's written down. It's the law.

 

There is no federal tail light percentage law, just like there is no federal window tint percentage law. There are plenty of federal regulations that discuss obstructions of lighting devices.

 

Now you can attempt to justify your illegal painting all you want. You can equivocate your actions by pointing fingers. You can quibble over terminology and ignore the intent of the law. You can argue and piss and moan and try to blame everyone else. You can deflect, you can look for loopholes, you can pretend like its not a big deal. You can pretend like your lights aren't dangerous. But that doesn't change anything.

 

Your tail lights are illegal. /discussion

 

Again, good write-up on the badge mod.