hey black were in jersey are you? and yes i think they are

 

IS300TOG35, wouldnt they look transparent because you got the GTR style that have the holes cut out for the brake lights? Not like the full smoked where it had to go thru the tint??

 

I've had Bat's overlays for almost a year now. Absolutely love them. I think there really shouldn't be any leagal issues with them because I think I've seen some OEM taillights that are almost as dark. Here's a pic of mine:

 

Here are the full smokes, you can't tell that they're there, they only reduce the glare a little. I have pics with the 3rd brake light on too if you're interested.

 

My neighbor is a DPS trooper here in Texas and he just pulled over a TA for Blacked out Taillights and was telling me about it but he did mention that if you cannot see no red in them they are illegal. I had my RX8 pretty dark with the Nightshades and he did not see a problem with them and I thought they were dark.

 

I had a window tinting guy install the ones I had on my Z. He charged $25 to install all the pieces (8 total).

 

I am in Somerset NJ.

As far as cops bothering you in NJ, I have had the sidemarker overlays / taillight overlays on for around a month and a half now, no problems. I have had cops in front of me, on the side of me, and behind me at stop lights.

 

What exactly are those bat's overlays?? i'm very interested. How much, where and how please !!!
I used night shades spray on my previous car, but I wouldn't want to do that again. I was wondering how is that different?
Not worrying about legal issues.
Thanks for any clearifications in advance.

 

Knite, you can either send Andy a PM to Blue_Batmobile, or send him an email at dubbleA@peoplepc.com. He is very helpful, and will answer all your questions.

 

Just finished a big discussion on this legality thing on a Mustang forum with a guy who claims to be a former state inspector and anothe guy who is a Houston traffic cop(!).

So, let's dig out the manual.... (Italics mine)


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/vi/insp...ejectsubmit=Go

20.27
Tail Lamp. Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, and any other vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with at least two taillamps mounted on the rear which, when lighted, shall emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear, except that passenger cars and trucks manufactured or assembled prior to the model year 1960 shall have at least one tail lamp. On vehicles equipped with more than one tail lamp, the taillamps shall be mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable.


Every tail lamp upon every vehicle shall be located at a height of not more than 72 inches nor less than 15 inches. Taillamps are used only to designate the rear of a vehicle.


Every tail lamp upon motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, or mopeds shall be located at a height of not more than 72 inches nor less than 20 inches. Tail lamp lens must be of a type meeting Department of Public Safety standards.


At least two taillamps are required on all motor vehicles, trailers, semitrailers, and pole trailers, except that at least one tail lamp is required on motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, and mopeds and all 1959 model year and earlier passenger cars and trucks.


1. Inspection Procedure. Check operation and condition visually.


2. Inspect for and reject if:


a. Required lamp or lamps are not present.


b. Lamp is not securely mounted to vehicle.


c. Lamp does not completely emit a red light plainly visible 1,000 feet to the rear.


d. Lamp lens is painted, missing, discolored, or does not fit properly.


e. Wiring is shoddy or electrical connections are poor.


f. Lamp is not wired so as to be lighted when head lamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted.


g. Lamp is obstructed by any part of the body.


h. Lamp lens is not red color.

i. Lamps are not mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable.


j. Lamps are not mounted on rear of vehicle.


k. Lens is cracked or broken to the extent that a portion of the lens is missing and/or separated, permitting light from the bulb to emit through the crack or break.

Seems to me the lesson is DON'T PAINT YOUR LENSES. Use protective vinyl adhesive covers instead. ;-)


_____________________________

tordiway@pcpcdallas.com
Park Cities Performance Center
http://www.pcpcdallas.com

 

This is the tail end of the, um, "discussion" we had on the Mustang forum. The cop said he pretty much ignores the tinted lenses unless he has absolutely nothing better to do. The former state inspector was adamant that they are illegal. We concluded thusly....

Well, I don't know if I want to go too much farther down this road - we might be splitting hairs and getting **** here. As the officer pointed out, whether something is illegal or not and whether it is enforced or not can often be two different things. I'm reminded of a sign that used to hang over the bar at Gordo's in Austin many years ago: "Prices Subject to Change According to Customer's Attitude." I think Lawman is saying that many street cops treat these situations indvidually instead of applying a blanket rule of enforcement.

As far as Texas Dept Public Safety motor vehicle code goes, I see the key lines as being # c. and d. To wit:

c. Lamp does not completely emit a red light plainly visible 1,000 feet to the rear.
d. Lamp lens is painted, missing, discolored, or does not fit properly.

As one who has had to photograph hundreds of these darn things over the course of the past six months, I've discovered a few things that cause me to believe that the law is very open to interpretation. Here's an example: the OEM plastic outside taillight lens on a 2005 Mustang is an almost maraschino cherry red color. The the OEM plastic outside taillight lens on a 2005 Subaru Impreza/WRX/STi is an almost black cherry red color. Which red is the correct red? Both lamps emit a "red" light plainly visible 1,000 feet to the rear.

If you put our Smoke (NOT Stealth Smoke which is another subject altogether) vinyl covers on a '05 Mustang the resulting red color is almost indentical to the OEM black cherry red of a Subaru. And as best as we can tell, the covered 'Stang lens still emits red light plainly visible 1,000 feet to the rear. If it passes that test, is it illegal? Section d. of the Code only says that the lens cannot be "discolored."

Notice that the Code says that the lamp must "emit a red light plainly visible 1,000 feet to the rear." But the Code does NOT say if this must be true in the daytime, the nighttime, or both! Again, having photographed more headlight and taillights than I care to remember, I've discoverd that the color and intensity of the red emitted by the lamp is greatly affected by the amount of (or lack of) natural light on the scene at the time. Shoot the back of a car with no flash on a cloudy day and the lens looks dark. Shoot the same car on a sunny day and the lens looks bright.

So... I'm not really pushing any agenda here. It seems to me that everything is open to the individual's interpretation.

- end -

 

if you look at h
h. Lamp lens is not red color.
then that kind of answers the question

btw. I live in NJ and I have all might lights on my car blacked out completely, I don't have a G35C yet, I have a 2000 Eclipse, and I had them for about a month yet and I haven't gotten pulled over yet