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

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

formatting link
information is at
formatting link
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

Reply to
Ed White
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Shep

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

Reply to
N8N

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.

Reply to
John S.

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

Reply to
N8N

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

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I think Dan Stern said it a lot better than I.

Reply to
John S.

#include

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

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.

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")

Reply to
Don Bruder

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

Reply to
Ad absurdum per aspera

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?

Reply to
<HLS

aren't yet aware of. What year and model Jaguar is this?

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

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

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

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

It is a 1999 Van den Plas. The lenses are round glass units, approximately

6 inches in diameter (I would estimate).
Reply to
<HLS

Alex Rodriguez writes in article dated Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:05:10 -0500:

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.

Reply to
Spud Demon

'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 >
Reply to
Mike Romain

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.

Reply to
Steve

That, too!

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

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.

Reply to
Steve

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.

Reply to
<HLS

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

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

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.

Reply to
Steve

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.