Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Is the use of "Nite Shades" on taillights legal?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ed White - 04 Jan 2006 16:19 GMT
Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
of light emitted through the lens. Are there rules/regulations/laws
that are in conflict with this product?

Examples of its appliation can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/7h83x
Product information is at
http://www.stevensautoglaze.com/national/auto/niteshds.htm

I noticed that the product disclaimer says - "This product is for
off-road use only and can only be shipped to the continental US." This
implies to me it is technically illegal,  but does its use actually
cause problems with law enforcement / vehicle inspection?

Ed
Shep - 04 Jan 2006 16:36 GMT
Will fail NYS inspection.
> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Ed
N8N - 04 Jan 2006 16:43 GMT
> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Ed

Probably not.  It really depends on the discretion of the police
officer, but the taillights are guaranteed by the mfgr. to be legal
only with a stock, unmodified lens.  Now you may be able to use such a
product and still have legal light output, but there's too many
variables to give a blanket answer and I'm sure that a police officer
still might recognize them as being modified and issue a ticket anyway.
Short answer, I wouldn't take the risk.

nate
John S. - 04 Jan 2006 16:49 GMT
> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Ed

If it is legal only for off road use then by inference it is illegal
for onroad use according to the maker.  Why anyone (other than military
or a drug runner) would want to darken a taillight on any car is beyond
me.  Maybe this is the latest in "cool" lighting along with faux HID
lights and lighted wheel wells.
N8N - 04 Jan 2006 16:58 GMT
> > Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> > darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> me.  Maybe this is the latest in "cool" lighting along with faux HID
> lights and lighted wheel wells.

Well, it does look good on a black or dark colored car.  But the safety
implications would keep me from using it - I'm always trying to make my
lights work as well as possible, not hinder their output.

nate
John S. - 04 Jan 2006 17:39 GMT
> > > Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> > > darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> nate

I think Dan Stern said it a lot better than I.
Ulf - 07 Jan 2006 22:05 GMT
>>>Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
>>>darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Well, it does look good on a black or dark colored car.

Yeah, and black tail lights look exceptionally good on a Cayenne red
metallic Camaro. Ask me how I know... :-)

  But the safety
> implications would keep me from using it - I'm always trying to make my
> lights work as well as possible, not hinder their output.

How often do you drive any of your Studebakers in the dark.

> nate
Ulf
Nate Nagel - 08 Jan 2006 02:00 GMT
>>>> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
>>>> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> How often do you drive any of your Studebakers in the dark.

well, I haven't driven *any* of my personal vehicles any appreciable
distance at all for months; but that's more due to a combination of bad
luck, stupidity, and a lack of free time.

car #1 (listed in order of acquisition) '62 Studebaker hardtop: Blew up
clutch in a "burnout contest" leaving a car show last year.  Have not
fixed yet due to large number of "while you're in theres" that need to
be addressed.

car #2: '88 Porsche 944: previous daily hawler, was hit 'n' run in the
LR quarter panel while parked in front of my house only weeks after
getting a company car.  After a long stint in the body shop, noticed a
severe vibration from the rear end.  Has been in and out of shops since;
is currently at the third shop where at least the mechanic was correctly
able to reproduce the symptoms I was describing, which is more than I
can say about the first two.  He's had it for almost a week now,
hopefully he will be able to identify and fix the problem.  Porsche
withdrawal is approaching "need methadone NOW" stage.

car #3: '55 Studebaker coupe, with a badly done '63 289/Flightomatic
transplant.  Still waiting on various pieces parts to be done before it
can be considered roadworthy.  A guy in Florida is supposed to be
polishing a timing cover for me and making me an adapter plate so that I
can run an early water outlet on the late water pump housing.  (right
now it has an ugly flex hose with two different sized ends, I want to
use the correct molded hose, because I like a tidy engine compartment.)
 I need those two pieces before I can address the massive oil leaks
from the engine, which appear to be in the front seal (in timing cover)
and oil pan (which would be stupid to R&R if I'm going to do the timing
cover later.)  Also waiting on a local machine shop to true up the
aftermarket aluminum intake I bought and stupidly had polished before I
test fit it. (hey, a Stude engine needs all the weight savings it can
get.  It's strong, but strength comes at a price...)  Also waiting on a
guy in CA to send me various pieces of glass that I need, notably the
front vent windows.  (want to stop the massive water leaks, but both of
my vent windows are busted, and not worth putting new gaskets on.)  Same
guy is supposed to send me the correct linkages for my current
motor/tranny/body combination to replace the kludged together mess I
whipped up to replace the even more incorrect mess that the previous
owner hacked into the car.  (engine/trans apparently came out of a Lark
body, not a Hawk (later iteration of the "Loewy coupe" body style,) and
when the gas pedal linkage didn't line up, he simply cut the hole in the
floor bigger with a muffler chisel.  Yeeesh.)

But that said, the '55 is intended to be a daily-driver type car.  I'm
not actually going to use it as such, but I plan it to be capable of
such duty when I'm through with it.  The heater is already fully
functional, and as I said in another post, I plan on adding Cibies and a
relay harness to it.  It's running electronic ignition, a Delco
alternator, and I've got 15x7" wheels with modern radials.  I've also
added gas shocks and late model (well, 63-64) "Super Hawk" sway bars
front and rear, heavy duty springs, and completely gone through the
suspension.   I've already taken a good stab at sealing up the leaky
trunk; we will see when my NOS trunk hinge arrives if it's truly
watertight now.  Future plans include a 60's vintage under dash A/C unit
if I can make a Sanden compressor clear the hood, and also maybe a set
of disc brakes and a dual circuit master cylinder.  Windshield washers
are another item for which I'm keeping my eyes open.

So the short answer is, not at all lately, but if I can manage to
reverse my current trend of automotive nonfunctionality, probably more
than you'd think.

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Ulf - 09 Jan 2006 20:17 GMT
>>>>> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
>>>>> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the
[quoted text clipped - 93 lines]
> reverse my current trend of automotive nonfunctionality, probably more
> than you'd think.

You really seem to have your work cut out for you. But at least you're
not having these problems in the summer, and commuting in the snow and
salt with a car you care about is no fun anyway. Hell, I drive a BMW 535
the whole winter instead of my Camaro, but what you gonna do...

> nate

Ulf
Daniel J. Stern - 04 Jan 2006 17:06 GMT
> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> darkens the lens.

Application of a tinted coating or any kind of covering, even a clear one,
over a lighting device is prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 108 (Lamps and Reflective Devices). Therefore, in every state it
is Federally illegal for any party except the vehicle owner to apply such
a covering or coating. In a state with a vehicle code that incorporates
FMVSS 108 requirements, either by incorporation or by reference,
application of a lens-darkening coating by any party including the vehicle
owner would be illegal. Even in states that do not incorporate or
reference FMVSS 108 requirements in their vehicle codes, it is very likely
that application of any tinted coating or covering would render the
vehicle noncompliant with state requirements for lighting device
visibility and/or performance.

And, finally, even if you live in a state with a vehicle code that is
completely silent on the matter, application of any tinted or opaque
coating or covering to any vehicle lighting or reflective device is a
collossally stupid idea. Not only does it sharply reduce the performance
of these safety devices, increasing the likelihood you'll be hit, but it
also is an open invitation for cops to pay special attention to you. Ever
drive out of state, or even to the next town? Just because local cops
don't care doesn't mean other cops will likewise disregard the
modification. And, in the event of a collision, it would be a rather easy
case to make in court that the coating or covering on a vehicle's lamps
reduced their performance to such a degree that they were a causal factor
in the crash.

DS
HLS@nospam.nix - 04 Jan 2006 18:52 GMT
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> Application of a tinted coating or any kind of covering, even a clear one,
> over a lighting device is prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
> Standard 108 (Lamps and Reflective Devices).

My wife's son has a Jaguar that has now lost the two RHS lenses over the
right headlights  (Not a sealed beam application).  The lights work, but he
cannot find these lenses in the junkyards, and the new price looks
frighteningly
like a couple hundred bucks each.

We used to install plastic rock guards over the headlights of our company
cars to stop the almost continuous replacement of the sealed beams.

Do you interpret this legislation (And I cannot see any reason why it
wouldn't)
to prevent such protective covers?
Daniel J. Stern - 04 Jan 2006 19:30 GMT
> > Application of a tinted coating or any kind of covering, even a clear one,
> > over a lighting device is prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
> > Standard 108 (Lamps and Reflective Devices).

> My wife's son has a Jaguar that has now lost the two RHS lenses over the
> right headlights  (Not a sealed beam application).  The lights work, but he
> cannot find these lenses in the junkyards, and the new price looks
> frighteningly like a couple hundred bucks each.

>From the dealer, probably so. There may exist aftermarket options you
aren't yet aware of. What year and model Jaguar is this?

> We used to install plastic rock guards over the headlights of our company
> cars to stop the almost continuous replacement of the sealed beams.
> Do you interpret this legislation (And I cannot see any reason why it
> wouldn't) to prevent such protective covers?

Indeed it does prohibit clear lamp guards. Sounds silly? Well...yeah,
until you remember that most of the "clear" guards are made out of a
material that is not optically clear; transmissivity is generally about
85%. So right out of the bag, you're losing 15% of your headlamp
performance. With one particular stick-on film ("Stongard"), the loss
is closer to 20%.  And as far as I know, there are no headlamp guards
made to automotive standards of resistance to UV and abrasion. Think
about that for a minute: In North America, the standards for UV and
abrasion resistance are pretty pathetic, as can be seen by walking down
any street and looking at all the yellowed, cloudy, sandblasted plastic
headlight lenses. The guards aren't even made to _that_ pathetic level
of environmental resistance. Not that they couldn't be, for the
materials are available on the open market -- it's just that they're
not.

Add in the tendency of some guard designs to collect condensation
and/or dirt, and you begin to see why US law forbids guards of any
type, whether clear or tinted.

In practice, of course, if you start out with good quality
clear/untinted guards and keep on top of them, cleaning them when they
need it, replacing them when they go cloudy and get scratched, then
you're not too likely to run into legal trouble.

I really think the best overall solution to the problem is replaceable
headlamp lenses, preferably made out of glass.

DS
HLS@nospam.nix - 04 Jan 2006 20:30 GMT
> >From the dealer, probably so. There may exist aftermarket options you
> aren't yet aware of. What year and model Jaguar is this?
> I really think the best overall solution to the problem is replaceable
> headlamp lenses, preferably made out of glass.
>
> DS

It is a 1999 Van den Plas.  The lenses are round glass units, approximately
6 inches in diameter (I would estimate).
Steve - 05 Jan 2006 16:18 GMT
> I really think the best overall solution to the problem is replaceable
> headlamp lenses, preferably made out of glass.

And made only in a handful (10 or less) STANDARDIZED form factors used
by all carmakers so that when it comes time to replace them, its cheap
and easy regardless of the car's brand or age... rather than so
expensive that owners tend to leave them broken until absolutely forced
to fix them by a failed inspection.
Daniel J. Stern - 05 Jan 2006 16:55 GMT
>> I really think the best overall solution to the problem is replaceable
>> headlamp lenses, preferably made out of glass.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> expensive that owners tend to leave them broken until absolutely forced
> to fix them by a failed inspection.

That, too!

DS
Steve - 05 Jan 2006 20:24 GMT
>>> I really think the best overall solution to the problem is
>>> replaceable headlamp lenses, preferably made out of glass.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That, too!

And I forgot the most important thing- ALL of the form factors should
have excellent photometry, avoiding the 94 Camaro / 1st-gen LH / etc.
sub-par performance of vehicle-specific headlamps.
HLS@nospam.nix - 05 Jan 2006 22:24 GMT
> > I really think the best overall solution to the problem is replaceable
> > headlamp lenses, preferably made out of glass.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> expensive that owners tend to leave them broken until absolutely forced
> to fix them by a failed inspection.

That would make it very convenient, but when some manufacturers get their
'fat' from humping egocentric yuppies, things are not likely to get more
standardized.

A little judgement, used when buying certain automobiles, would go miles.

If one can't afford a Ferrari, then one shouldn't buy it.  If 'one' cant
afford to
maintain the POS he bought, maybe he could get a second job, OR sell said
POS.  Or buy a Ford Feces, or something else within his ability.
Steve - 05 Jan 2006 22:41 GMT
> A little judgement, used when buying certain automobiles, would go miles.

If there was much choice, then yes. Have you priced replacement "aero"
headlamps? Even for "common" cars? Or "cheap" cars?

>Or buy a Ford Feces,

I'm going to remember that one... :-)

>or something else within his ability.

I'll wager you that a headlamp assembly for a Feces is on the order of
$150-$200 US. The problem is that even CHEAP cars have expensive
unique-to-the-model headlamps now.
HLS@nospam.nix - 05 Jan 2006 22:48 GMT
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> I'll wager you that a headlamp assembly for a Feces is on the order of
> $150-$200 US. The problem is that even CHEAP cars have expensive
> unique-to-the-model headlamps now.

We are exactly on the same page, Steve.
C. E. White - 06 Jan 2006 14:02 GMT
> > A little judgement, used when buying certain automobiles, would go miles.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> $150-$200 US. The problem is that even CHEAP cars have expensive
> unique-to-the-model headlamps now.

You are not too far off. For a 2003 Ford Focus the list price on the
headlights is $161.00. Fordpartsonline will sell you one for $120.75. Of
course this is still pretty cheap comapred to say a Toyota Camry ($253 list
/ $190 discounted).

Ed
Hugo Schmeisser - 06 Jan 2006 00:45 GMT
> In North America, the standards for UV and
> abrasion resistance are pretty pathetic, as can be seen by walking
> down any street and looking at all the yellowed, cloudy, sandblasted
> plastic headlight lenses.

Yep yep yep.

Now I have a question: Is it just my imagination, or do the lights
surrounding the headlight, and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn
yellow in the same manner as the headlamps? And if it's NOT my
imagination, why is this so and why can't they make headlight lenses
the same way?
Daniel J. Stern - 06 Jan 2006 01:33 GMT
>> In North America, the standards for UV and abrasion resistance are
>> pretty pathetic, as can be seen by walking down any street and looking
>> at all the yellowed, cloudy, sandblasted plastic headlight lenses.

> Yep yep yep.

Well...you and I both agree on the matter, but I know at least one person
who doesnt. Guy posts under the name of "Boxman". Over on
sci.engr.lighting for the past several months he's been telling me I'm
full of beans, that the US headlamp standards are better overall than the
rest-of-world standards, the US plastic lens degradation-resistance
standards are at least as good and probably better, etc.

Me, I find it kind of funny that he tries to argue from authority based on
his time in the employ of the US auto lighting company that put such
godawful lamps on the road as the '96-'00 Chrysler minivan
(US/Canada/Mexico) headlamps, amongst many others. To be sure, there are
plenty of points that can be debated back and forth regarding the relative
merits of the US and rest-of-world car lighting standards. But, gee whiz,
his former employer has a *lot* of bad lighting to answer for! Not really
where I tend to go for knowledgeable commentary on such matters. Not when
there are companies that put out good lamps meeting US standards *and*
good lamps meeting rest-of-world standards.

> Now I have a question: Is it just my imagination, or do the lights
> surrounding the headlight, and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn
> yellow in the same manner as the headlamps? And if it's NOT my
> imagination, why is this so and why can't they make headlight lenses the
> same way?

That's an excellent question. I've noticed the same thing you have: On
some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate as
fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps. Baffling, eh?

DS
Brent P - 06 Jan 2006 01:56 GMT
>> Now I have a question: Is it just my imagination, or do the lights
>> surrounding the headlight, and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate as
> fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps. Baffling, eh?

The factory headlamps on my '97 mustang clouded over and I replaced them
after getting sick of polishing them and the driver's side one developing
a crack from an impact. However, the turn/marker lights, right next to the
headlamps, having seen the exact same conditions over the years remained
like new. One has since been replaced due to the poor driving a 17 year
old and the other has a very small rock chip in it, but these lamps have
been fine.

Also the plastic taillamp and marker lamp lenses of my '73 maverick are
still like new some 30 years after they were made. Of course the
headlamps on that car are sealed beam and glass.

I've noticed that the non-headlamps don't appear to have the UV/hardcoat
either. Obviously there is a difference in the resin itself. Why that
resin does not make for a good headlamp I cannot tell. It seems to be
able to be molded with acceptable optical properties.
Matthew Russotto - 06 Jan 2006 04:31 GMT
>> Now I have a question: Is it just my imagination, or do the lights
>> surrounding the headlight, and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate as
>fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps. Baffling, eh?

Isn't heat more of an issue in the headlamp?  Both heat and UV can
turn plastic yellow.

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Daniel J. Stern - 06 Jan 2006 04:45 GMT
>>> Is it just my imagination, or do the lights surrounding the headlight,
>>> and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn yellow in the same manner as
>>> the headlamps? And if it's NOT my imagination, why is this so and why
>>> can't they make headlight lenses the same way?

>> That's an excellent question. I've noticed the same thing you have: On
>> some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate as
>> fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps. Baffling, eh?
>
> Isn't heat more of an issue in the headlamp?  Both heat and UV can turn
> plastic yellow.

Not really, no -- the bigger issue is UV from the headlamp bulbs. Heat's
secondary.
Brent P - 06 Jan 2006 05:46 GMT
>>>> Is it just my imagination, or do the lights surrounding the headlight,
>>>> and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn yellow in the same manner as
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Not really, no -- the bigger issue is UV from the headlamp bulbs. Heat's
> secondary.

Considering the damage is the outside surface of the head lamp, I would
say the issue is UV from the sun. If it was UV from the bulb, the inside
surface without the hardcoat would yellow and all the polishing in the
world wouldn't make a difference.
Steve - 06 Jan 2006 17:17 GMT
> That's an excellent question. I've noticed the same thing you have: On
> some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate as
> fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps. Baffling, eh?
>
> DS

Perhaps UV emission FROM the headlamp itself contributes to faster
deterioration?
Daniel J. Stern - 07 Jan 2006 21:05 GMT
>> On some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate
>> as fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps.

> Perhaps UV emission FROM the headlamp itself contributes to faster
> deterioration?

Yep.

DS
Brent P - 07 Jan 2006 22:48 GMT
>>> On some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate
>>> as fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yep.

In addition to the sun, but I would guess not enough to actually damage
the lamp by itself since the inside surface is usually not deteriorated,
just the outside.
Steve - 09 Jan 2006 16:00 GMT
>>>>On some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate
>>>>as fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the lamp by itself since the inside surface is usually not deteriorated,
> just the outside.

The amount of UV that comes off the filament of a halogen capsule is
rather amazing. And I'm not convinced that all the apparent damage IS on
the outside.
Brent P - 09 Jan 2006 16:13 GMT
>>>>>On some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate
>>>>>as fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> rather amazing. And I'm not convinced that all the apparent damage IS on
> the outside.

The once completely fogged over headlamp from my car is now sitting on a
desk in my bedroom in very acceptable condition. I polished the outside,
the inside is not accessible.
Steve - 09 Jan 2006 17:58 GMT
>>>>>>On some makes and models, the front signalling lamps don't deteriorate
>>>>>>as fast or severely as the adjacent headlamps.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> desk in my bedroom in very acceptable condition. I polished the outside,
> the inside is not accessible.

I wonder if the  UV protective layer deteriorated first, since it is
designed to absorb UV. If its only applied to the outside, that would
explain a lot. It would receive damage both from the sun AND from the
headlamp filament.
Bob M. - 06 Jan 2006 03:54 GMT
> Now I have a question: Is it just my imagination, or do the lights
> surrounding the headlight, and also made of clear plastic, NOT turn
> yellow in the same manner as the headlamps? And if it's NOT my
> imagination, why is this so and why can't they make headlight lenses
> the same way?

My guess is the heat from the headlamps causes the difference.  Over time
the plastic breaks down from it, I guess.
HLS@nospam.nix - 06 Jan 2006 13:50 GMT
> >From the dealer, probably so. There may exist aftermarket options you
> aren't yet aware of. What year and model Jaguar is this?

It is a 99 Van den Plas.  Any clues for the owner?

> In practice, of course, if you start out with good quality
> clear/untinted guards and keep on top of them, cleaning them when they
> need it, replacing them when they go cloudy and get scratched, then
> you're not too likely to run into legal trouble.

In fact, we used to buy a handful of the things and replace them whenever
they got dirty.  They were only a couple of bucks each.

Police here are very unlikely to notice a minor infraction like this.  Heck,
they don't even notice major infractions unless their 'Boss Hogg'
nature comes out.

> DS
Don Bruder - 04 Jan 2006 18:01 GMT
> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> off-road use only and can only be shipped to the continental US." This
> implies to me it is technically illegal,

#include <IAmNotALawyer.h>

Well, for starters, that doesn't just "imply". It tells you specifically
that it isn't street-legal.

>  but does its use actually cause problems with law enforcement /

Maybe. Probably depends on how observant/active the cops are in your
neck of the woods. The level of funds in local coffers might have an
impact, too, depending on how your cops/sheriff get their operating
money.

> vehicle inspection?

I'd expect it to get you a big fat FAIL stamp if it isn't street-legal,
which the disclaimer makes clearly known is the case. YMMV by inspector,
I'd imagine.

My *OPINION*, offered with the full knowledge that it may be worth
exactly what you paid me for it, is that (A) This stuff is illegal on a
street vehicle (B) Because of this, you're likely to find yourself
getting more police attention than you like, should you apply it, and  
(C) I wonder how well it comes off when you get the fix-it ticket? Or
will you have to go out and buy yourself some new lenses at some ungodly
price?

Local anecdote - northern California:
You've seen those "mask" widgets that get put on taillights, right? I'm
sure you know the ones I'm talking about... A Dodge Ram pickup with a
chrome cutout of a ram wrapped around each taillight, and similar? Not
really all that different from this stuff you're asking about. The ones
sold around here carried the same "off road use only" disclaimer. And
they caught on - for a short time - I think it was about a month or so
of seeing them "here and there" in increasing numbers, then all of a
sudden, for about 3 weeks they were *REAL* popular - everybody and his
dog seemed to have some variation of the theme,hung on everything  
tricked out Rams to ragged out beaters. At $30+ a pop, they couldn't
keep 'em on the shelf, according to the counterman I talked to at the
local "Real" (As opposed to Autozone, etc) auto parts place. About that
time, the cops started noticing them and enforcing a long-standing bit
of local legalese that boils down to "any aftermarket gear that isn't
certified to (one of several major automotive standards I've forgotten
and am too lazy to look up for this post) is a defective equipment (fix
it or fork over $250 and expect to get pulled over again) ticket on the
first offense, and a $500 fine on the second and subsequent offenses."

Found that out when I asked the same counterman why they suddenly got so
scarce almost overnight - In the course of about 10 days, it went from
"they're everywhere" to only seeing a small handful a day, and then
finally not seeing them at all. As he put it, within a week of the
crackdown, you couldn't get anybody to buy those things if they were
marked down to 5 sets for a buck, 'cause the cops were smelling easy
money. (That's also when I found out that around here, a %-age of
whatever gets collected from last year's traffic fines automatically
gets dumped into the "general purpose" section of this year's PD/Sheriff
budgets on top of whatever else gets allocated by "city hall")

Signature

Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Ad absurdum per aspera - 04 Jan 2006 18:35 GMT
>This product darkens the lens.

That would seem a legally and pragmatically questionable thing to do to
a part whose whole reason for existence is to emit a certain  amount
and quality of light, don't you think?

Cheers,
--Joe
Alex Rodriguez - 04 Jan 2006 20:05 GMT
>I noticed that the product disclaimer says - "This product is for
>off-road use only and can only be shipped to the continental US." This
>implies to me it is technically illegal,  but does its use actually
>cause problems with law enforcement / vehicle inspection?

Not technically illegal, it is illegal.  With good reason too.  Anything you
put on the light is going to deminish the brightness.  A bad idea with no
benefits.
-----------
Alex
Spud Demon - 04 Jan 2006 21:38 GMT
Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> writes in article <dph9pm$m5l$18@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> dated Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:05:10 -0500:

>>I noticed that the product disclaimer says - "This product is for
>>off-road use only and can only be shipped to the continental US." This
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>put on the light is going to deminish the brightness.  A bad idea with no
>benefits.

Whatever tinting does to the brightness of the lights, it will do doubly to
the brightness of the reflectors.  Light from another car's headlights would
have to go through the tint layer twice.

-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Mike Romain - 04 Jan 2006 23:37 GMT
'Off road use only' means it is 'not' street legal, period.

I have been pulled over on several occasions over the years for having
dirty rear lights so it is easy to get nailed for it.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos:  Non members can still view!
Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

> Is it legal to use the "Nite Shades" on taillight lens? This product
> darkens the lens. It seems to me this must have an impact on the amount
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Ed
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.