quote:

---

how often does one get pulled over for no license plate?

---

Twice this weekend. Two warnings.

CT, I have that plate but with non-personalized characters.

No front plate on the GTO, none on my truck. Been pulled over in both, no mentions during any stops.

i got pulled over for the taillights. funny thing is that the stop was initiated for the taillights and the trooper didn't even know the actual law concerning visibility plus there was no way for him to determine if my lights met the visibility tests b/c he pulled me over before i had put on my brake lights.

i think the real reason i got pulled over was i had the gall to drive at 45 mph past him (in a 50) while he was going 35 on the feeder road.

Do you have smoked tails or something?

yeah. but they meet the legal requirements. i checked.

quote:

---

i got pulled over for the taillights. funny thing is that the stop was initiated for the taillights and the trooper didn't even know the actual law concerning visibility plus there was no way for him to determine if my lights met the visibility tests b/c he pulled me over before i had put on my brake lights.

---

No amount of external covering/tinting/blackening/spray on darkening is legal in Texas. Actually, it is against the federal standard for lighting required for a vehicle. It does not matter how far you can see your brake light or tail light. This is because of the following statute in the Texas Transportation Code:

quote:

---

§ 547.3215. USE OF FEDERAL STANDARD. Unless specifically
prohibited by this chapter, lighting, reflective devices, and
associated equipment on a vehicle or motor vehicle must comply
with:
(1) the current federal standards in 49 C.F.R. Section
571.108; or
(2) the federal standards in that section in effect,
if any, at the time the vehicle or motor vehicle was manufactured.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 324, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

---

If you read the referenced federal standard in the section shown, then it says there are 5 things required per tail light: 1. brake light, 2. tail light, 3. back up light, 4. turn signal and 5. red reflector. Texas statutes in the Transportation Code further define each of those five required items.

Some people try to place red reflector tape on the rear of the vehicle to pass the red-reflector requirement, but that reflector tape isn't TX DOT approved to replace the required red reflector. The tinted lenses are still in violation of the other four requirements.

If a vehicle has any amount of tinting on the outside of the tail light, then it isn't supposed to pass inspection either. Inspectors and inspection stations get in trouble with DPS for passing vehicles with illegal tail lights fairly often.

There are some internally smoked tail light assemblies that are US DOT and TX DOT approved, but buyer beware, since there are companies out there claiming to be DOT legal when they simply are not.

Although blacked out tail lights on some vehicles looks neat, they are dangerous and that is why they aren't legal.

^ Exactly, any tint/paint on tails is illegal.

My tails are smoked fairly light...you can still clearly see the red through them. I've never had any problems with the law about em though cause at night they look stock



Haha please excuse the dent my dad put in it

[This message has been edited by silverado_lover (edited 5/9/2011 7:43p).]

Actually, your tail lights are not legal. Like I said, any tint or paint over the outside of the lens is not legal. The only lenses that are legal are the DOT approved models that were internally smoked. An example would be the version available on the sport version of the Camry recently.

yeah mine aren't that dark, and they do fade over time.

the trooper went back to his car and looked up the requirements. told me that the lights had to be visible during the daytime at 300' and 1000' at night.

mine are visible at 1000'. plus i am in the process of upgrading to the LED bulbs which will make them brighter than stock anyway, eliminating any danger.

Yep I know they're not legal I was just saying that I've never had problems cause they're not insanely dark.

I'm also running HID's which are illegal if they didn't come stock on the vehicle but since I have glare shields, headlights aimed properly so I'm not blinding people and 5000K 35W so they aren't blue, violet, or pink, I haven't had any problems with them either

quote:

---

HOWEVER, WATCH OUT FOR HIGHWAY PATROL. They have a relatively new in car computer system that allows them to track ALL CONTACTS by car or person, even warnings, made by any Highway patrol. If you've been stopped before and given a warning, they will know it so don't try and BS them.

---

How many years / how many states?

No front plate required in SC, FTW!

I don't want to drill holes in the front of my new car.

DBS, I have to disagree with you. Nothing in the State or Federal standards restrict tinting. They require certain standards that, except for an engineer, are very difficult to understand. As long as your tail lights meet those minimum standards, your good. Aside from that it is the cops job to prove your tail lights don't meet standards. Simply saying they're tinted isn't enough. The officer must be able to articulate the standard for the tail lights and prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the tail lights don't meet that standard. I seriously doubt most police officers can do that.

Fife, it is just Texas DPS on the system as far as I know and it has been in use for a year or less.

quote:

---

The officer must be able to articulate the standard for the tail lights and prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the tail lights don't meet that standard. I seriously doubt most police officers can do that.

---

Well, you caught me oversimplifying things for the sake of this forum. Partly due to not wanting to get into a long drawn out argument and partly due to not wanting to go into extreme detail with the federal and state standards. Some officers may not be able to fully articulate the what the standard is, but the traffic officers I know have done that well in court.

As an aside, DPS says that if there is any tinting on the tail lights, it isn't supposed to pass inspection. I know that a few inspectors in the greater metropolitan B/CS area have lost their inspection certificate due to passing vehicles with any amount of tint on them.

My experience with the DPS bureaucracy has been they occasionally make blanket policy statements concerning the law they can't back up. It is usually a case of DPS "dumbing down" enforcement decisions and removing their officer's discretion (which is never a good idea). I know many/most troopers utilize common sense in the application of traffic law, are very good officers and should be allowed to use their discretion. However, It is usually when the "God Squad" in Austin start making generalizations that they screw things up. I have very little use for the DPS Highway Patrol bureaucracy and their growing tendency to act like "big brother" over their own Troopers.

A DPS policy that ANY tinting on tail lights is illegal would be just such a generalization. it can't be supported by statute or regulation. Just because DPS passes a policy down and an officer writes a ticket that goes unchallenged doesn't make DPS correct. Folks need to take the time to understand the law and, when necessary, fight it.