Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 2006
Is the use of "Nite Shades" on taillights legal?
|
|
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
|
|
|