The point of the aftermarket lights is that they are brighter, therefore allowing you to use blackouts.

Could you please point me towards the legal code that says these red reflectors have to be "showing" ie, not covered up with tint? They are still "there" just covered up until shined on.

Regardless, I doubt there's been a case where someone was pulled over because their reflectors were covered up. We are just getting nit-picky over here in a relentless urge to keep things stock or in keeping with personal preference.

 

The 3rd brake light is for brakes last I checked, not running lights.

 

Halos are DOT approved. They have markings inside and the required reflector in the center of each tail.

 

I still say if you "fix" the problem you just admitted guilt and then gave the judge every reason to convict. As far as "red" goes describe red to me please. Fire engine red, Mag red, Mod red, Torch red, Amaranth, Burgundy, Auburn, Cardinal, Carmine, Cerise, Fire brick, Flame, Folly, Fuchsia, Lust, Magenta, Maro, Redwood, Rose, Rosewood, Ruby, Rust, Scarlet, Terra cotta, just to name a few reds.

 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...px?reg=571.108
Table IV—Location of Required Equipment
"Reflex reflectors On the rear—1 red on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable"

Simple answer: A red which complies with SAE standard J594f.

 

I just don't get mods that ask for you to be pulled over. It doesn't seem worth the hassle , time and expense.

 

Yes I think the L.E.D. lights are usually as bright, or brighter than the stockers so you should be O.K.

If they are behind tinted lenses they don't reflect, same as not having any. The Arkansas code (adopted from fed. regs) 27-36-215(d)(1), also as far as changing your lights 27-36-201.

Well you'd be wrong. Tail lights blow a fuse sometimes. You're driving at night with your blacked out tail lights and that happens, you are totally dark behind. Some one slams into the rear of your vehicle and you have "willfully" covered up your reflectors! Guess who may end up on the short end of the stick in that situation? No, actually it is a safety issue. I don't advocate keeping things stock or even legal, except in the "safety areas". Although if your brake lights are bright enough with the after market lights, I might take my chances on the lack of reflectors since they only come into play if you lose your tail lights or are broke down on the side of the road. Since my tail lights are the same color as my car, I don't have to worry about it! (blacked out lights don't look good on every color in my opinion.....red being one of those of colors.)

 

If it's so easy why did you get the standard wrong? It's really SAE Standard J578c. SAE J578c says the red is that particular shade defined as "red" on the CIE 1931 2-degree Observer Chromaticity Coordinates chart.

 

That is my main point and dog in this debate. Instead of taking off blackouts like most everyone here strongly prefer, simply increase the light output. 2 birds with one stone. There's nothing wrong with blackouts unless they make it so that you can not see the taillights shining through. If he gets those and shows the cop that he fixed the problem, they might drop it.

I've come up on a person with taillights out and guess what? Their damn reflectors did NOTHING to help me spot them. It was because my lights illuminated the whole car that I was able to slow down in time. Those reflectors are not as useful and a godsend as you make them out to be.

And saying I'm wrong but not backing it up with any facts or cases does not constitute a win in my book. I said "I doubt there's been a case where someone was pulled over because their reflectors were covered up." Can you show me a case or instance that a cop pulled someone over because they didn't have reflectors in their taillights, or that were covered up? If their lights were out, THAT is why they were pulled over.

Reflectors I see being a MUCH smaller safety issue than even worth arguing about on a forum (I'm bored). And I'll respectfully disagree about blackouts not looking good on red vettes...I think they look very good on them. But I'm young and/or have my own preference.

Good talkin' with ya.

 

You didn't actually address the question.

 

My bad, you are correct.


S5.3.2 Except as provided in S5.3.2.1 through S5.3.2.4 and in paragraphs S5.7 and S7, each vehicle must conform to the following requirements:
(a) Each lamp and reflective device must be installed in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements and visibility requirements, with all obstructions ( e.g. , mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, and winches) installed on the vehicle.

Better?

 

Getting there I suppose, lol.

The blackouts or tint are not opaque. They filter some light from getting through, but not all of it. And if the OP installs LEDs, then they shine through just fine WITH covers/tint, therefore conforming to applicable photometric and visibility requirements.

 

The lights may be visible through the tint/blackouts but they still may not be DOT compliant due to the lack of red reflectors.
One way to get a definitive answer would be to send the lights out to Calcoast industrial testing laboratory. They offer SAE compliance testing and DOT certification .

 

What JW said.

 

Yes, the halo tail lights are DOT approved (I have them on my car)...BUT are the halo tail lights WITH blackout kits still DOT compliant, that is the question.

 

I'm not trying to win anything here, just stating facts. The stops for no reflectors are done all the time because the lights are usually covered, tinted or smoked (painted) so it is really a dual violation. With bright L.E.D.s where seeing the brake lights is not a problem, I agree, the cop may not bother. I retire next year after 30 years on the job, how many old citations would you like me to send you to constitute proof????

 

To all of you who thought it was a lost cause...... I finally had my day in court. Yes it was only a lousy $140 ticket for "inadequate tail light" but i was certain that i had broken no law. And I was right! I had the chance to speak to the officer who wrote the ticket before we were to see the judge. She said "What do you want to do about this?" I said " actually ? it's what YOU want to do with this. You preformed no field test to prove my tail lights were not visable at 100 feet as stated in the law. And if we go to trial i will be forced to show the judge these pictures (which i showed her) of my c5 at 25 foot intervals from 25 feet behind the car all the way to 200 feet behind the car. with and without brakes on, and at the same time of night the ticket was issued. OH and here is a copy of my state inspection sticker. apparently the state certified inspection garage had no issue with it being tinted either"...............She dropped the charges. Case dismissed.

 

SWEET

 

Congrats on getting the case dismissed...
....BUT, it doesn't change the fact that your tail lights are not DOT compliant.
Her mistake was giving you a ticket for "inadequate tail lights." Next time she will be sure to give you a ticket for inadequate reflector on rear.

 

True! It's common sense really. Somebody explain to me how making your tail/brake lights harder to see is a good and safe thing. Get rear ended after willfully making your tail/brake lights darker and harder to see and let me know how that all works out for you in the civil trial.