I was following one of these "murdered out" coupes on University yesterday afternoon at about 5:30. He/she (couldn't tell since the windows were blacked out too) had the tail lights blacked out such that with the setting sun coming from behind me, you really had to look closely to detect that he/she was signaling.

I'm not necessary looking for an endorsement or condemnation from the brain trust, more just my curiosity regarding the legality.

In Texas, they're not legal. Some states, yes. I think it's dumb. They think it makes it look pretty. Well, the "pretty tax" will be someone coming through your back window when they can't tell wtf you're doing.

A lot of the VW crowd is into this, along with the ricers (of course).

Light applications can look cool, any darker is dumb.

I almost did this to my truck a while back, but then thought, humm, what if its too dark and I get rear ended. Decided that it was not worth the hassle.

Good thing I never went through with it.

They are illegal and stupid. Why risk the potential for injury for some "good looks". Technically, you are supposed to fail an inspection, but most inspectors don't care. They just want your money.

quote:

---

Lens Covers (Blackouts)

State law Sec. 547.3215 incorporates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Subpart B, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Section 571.108, Standard No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard contains 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.
As a general comment, any device that impairs the required effectiveness of headlamps, taillamps, reflectors, etc is prohibited. The lights, both front and rear, are made by the manufacturer to meet this safety standard. An alternate or additional material, particularly something dark, would impair its effectiveness.


The inspection manual used by state certified inspection stations states the following inspection criteria:

"Tail lamp. Inspect and reject if: lamp is obstructed by any part of the body."

---

[This message has been edited by helgs (edited 10/27/2010 9:21a).]

Idiots overdoing "murdering" out a vehicle...

When they get rear-ended in the rain at night, the other guy's insurance company will have an easy case against the dewshes that do this.

So no?

Really they are probably fine at night. The problem is in really bright sunlight when it's tough to see normal tail lights.

I don't know why I say this, but something tells me that if I (or you) were to rear end a vehicle with tail light blackouts, they would get a ~50 ticket and I (you) would get to pay for the damages to both cars.

The reduced light output is a bad idea in ANY conditions. At night, brake lights might look like taillights. That is a potential problem.

Enforce the standards. I want the people in front of me to have working taillights that comply to standards.

quote:

---

I don't know why I say this, but something tells me that if I (or you) were to rear end a vehicle with tail light blackouts, they would get a ~50 ticket and I (you) would get to pay for the damages to both cars.

---

Not so fast. If the person was illegally covering up their lights, they are contributorily criminally negligent.

Right, I know but what should happen vs what happens is often not the same thing. Furthermore, rear ending someone really reflects badly on the rear-ender.

Officer: So could you see that he was slowing down?
Me: Yea, but I couldn't see his brake lights.
Officer: But you saw him?
Me: Yes.
Officer: Ok, you get a "failure to maintain safe follow distance" ticket which is a moving violation and looks bad to your insurance co. and you get this "Piss-ant ticket for not having a vehicle that passes inspection" which is roughly equivalent to having a burnt out tail light.

I absolutely agree that they should be illegal and are. I am just saying that if a wreck is caused by them, don't hold your breath waiting for a big check to fix you car.

That's not how it would go at all; you don't know what you are talking about, my friend, as you grossly simplified it.

Having a burnt out/obstructed tail light is a serious misdemeanor. When you get in a rear-end collision with that, you can bet your ass your insurance company will sue the driver you hit for contributory negligence.

Edit: grammar

[This message has been edited by helgs (edited 10/27/2010 3:07p).]

I know that it matters in Colorado. I was once camping and fishing with a bunch of the guys in my extended family up in the mountains, and on the day we packed up and left, we had a pretty bizzare accident.

I was in the passenger seat of the front vehicle, a chevy 1/2 ton towing a pop-up trailer. The next vehicle was a very loaded ford expedition, and the last vehicle was my brother and his friend in a jeep grand cherokee. We were coming down out of the mountians on a little two lane highway with a sharp rise on the right and a drop off into a river on the left. We get stuck behind some old fogey in a beat up old truck.

As we are driving along, I notice he appears to be slowing and see up ahead there is a driveway to the left where the river bansk away a bit. I then notice that I don't see any brake lights on the truck at all, and that my dad hasn't started reacting by slowing down. I start to mention something to my dad right as the guy in the truck decides he is going to stop and turn left, and he stops pretty suddenly in front of us, without brakes. I basically blurt it out "no brake lights, he's stopping to turn" as my dad jams the brakes, looking for an escape route. There is none.

One side of the highway is a sharp rocky rise with a gas wellhead pipe in the way, and the other is an oncoming 18 wheeler. As my dad jams the brakes and we screech to a stop and come within inches of hitting the truck in front of us only because he decides to pull up a bit more as the 18 wheeler comes past, my uncle, who has been taking a nap in the third seat sits up, sees the problem, looks behind us, and says "Here comes James!", and lays back down and assumes a crash position.

WHAM! We get hit from behind and lurch forward. The truck passes, and all four vehicles limp off the drive to the left, even the guy with no brakelights.

My uncle James in the middle driving the expedition had been too close and too loaded down to stop when we had slammed our brakes to avoid hitting the guy with no brake lights, and he had hit the trailer we were towing, which sheared off the hitch on the truck and shoved the tongue up under the rear of the truck. The grille, bumper and front hood of the expedition were toast, but it was driveable because the back end of the trailer had crushed and the front end had sheared off the receiver. The truck was driveable, but couldn't tow anymore.

The cops showed up and gave the guy with no brakelights a ticket for no brake lights, but then gave my uncle James a ticket for following too close. He told us if our chevy had so much as nudged the back of the guy's truck with no brake lights, then that guy would have gotten all the tickets given out that day, and consequently the insurances would have all blamed him. By avoiding that collision, we got my uncle a ticket. FWIW, he probably was too close considering we were going somewhat downhill and his vehicle was pretty loaded.

We ended up getting the trailer hitch replaced in town, and towing it back with the jeep, and all three vehicles made it home.

I was pretty pissed, as we were supposed to raft Royal Gorge on the way home, and the collision ended that.

So the old guy had blackout tail light covers...

I kid, I kid.

That's interesting, and definitely seems to support to helgs' assertion. It is also interesting that the officer/trooper guy clearly understood what had happened but that (legally) there needed to be a collision for the liability (is that the right word) to be shifted to the old guy. You can envision the same sort of thing happening where you don't notice the "murdered out" car signaling to switch lanes, you get startled, you slam on the brakes and then you get hit by someone behind you. I guess if the old guy had just turned and rolled on down the road, there really would not have been much recourse at all. Good for him for staying to get a ticket.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It makes you think about all sorts of stuff like heavy coatings of caliche dust on the tail lights or a receiver hitch basket that carries cargo, which could obstruct a tail lights.

quote:

---

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It makes you think about all sorts of stuff like heavy coatings of caliche dust on the tail lights or a receiver hitch basket that carries cargo, which could obstruct a tail lights.

---

Good point to make. That is just as much a crime (and dangerous)as blackouts.

Oh, and don't you think it's a little too early to be putting PHD in your user name?

Do I know you!!! Are you in my office!!!

You are right, I am a little early. I like to describe it as "thinking long term". Hopefully I can make the drive to and from school without rear ending someone enough more times that I can live up to my billing.

Another thing on top of blacking out taillights are people that replace their rear incandescent* bulbs with rear-only firing LEDs. If you dump the coin and get bulbs that are multi-directional firing to utilize the reflectors great, but the rear firing only bulbs are so dim because the bulb is the only thing you see. No reflected light, no nothing. Nearly rear ended a guy who had these bulbs in and I couldn't see them, that combined with his 3d break light not working cause me to really test out the brakes on my truck. Traction control and a shoulder ftw.


*Edited

[This message has been edited by Ag in Jax (edited 10/27/2010 5:34p).]

nobody makes halogen tail/brake lights.

quote:

---

At night, brake lights might look like taillights. That is a potential problem.

---

I don't get why you guys are complaining about not being able to tell the difference of a regular on taillight and a braking taillight when you should just be able to tell if a person is braking by the middle brake light. If a murdered out car doesn't have a middle brake light, then I can see how that would be a problem.

Ok, tinted tails are not, per se, illegal in Texas. You must be able to see the tails from 1000 feet, turn signals from 300 feet and red reflectors from 300 feet when illuminated at night by low beam head lights. As long as your tails meet these standards, they are legal. A good professional painter that knows what he is doing can tint tails pretty damn dark that meet these requirements. If you use aftermarket LED tails, they put out 30% more light and can easily be tinted and still be as bright or even brighter than stock.

In my case, the rear fogs in the bumper are not hooked up in the US. I had them wired to work as another set of tails/brake/turn signals.





[This message has been edited by litig8r187 (edited 10/27/2010 11:27p).]

[This message has been edited by litig8r187 (edited 10/27/2010 11:34p).]

Yes but...if you didn't have LEDs

Liti8r, I agree but those are rear tails that are designed around integrated LEDs. I'm talking about people that use the stock housing and using rear firing only bulbs.

Ex:


These are much better imho, because the illuminate all around like a standard OEM bulb:

Ag in Jax:

I agree with you on that one. I was just saying that tinted tails, especially LED tails, are plenty bright when tinted properly. I have LED towers in the backup lights now and they are less the useless. I'm working on a HID backup lights to replace them. Then I'll be able to see! I have LED towers in the rear fog lights and they work very well as a second set of tail/turn/brake lights. I also have LED switchbacks in the DRL/front turn signals and they work well and are very easy to see.

CEPhD: I just looked at your user name and your profile said student. Not that hard.