^^^ just realize the law states taillamps illumination must be visible from a distance of 1000 feet to the rear (ca vc 24600(e) and all stoplamps must be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime (ca vc 24603(e) ... you'll have to argue your case in court regarding the "vision" issue you posed - however, I'm certain the VC is written based on vision requirements for obtaining a driver's license.

You can also source Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 108 (49 CFR 571.108) for more info.

For reference here is an OEM sedan with the same tails as mine - happened to be behind it toady - typically I wouldnt be snapping pics, but the traffic flow was slow and I had just got out of this thread so I felt compelled to get pics.





I can assure you my lights are no more difficult to see than these - and in fact, mine are easier to determine when they are lit than many cars since the sun was somewhat behind us (to the left) and it shines on bright red lens in a way that makes it difficult to tell sometimes if the brakes are on or not (not an issue with darker red, or visible tint w/LEDs).

It is indisputable that as long as they illuminate red and can be seen from proper distance they are legal. Once it is determined that they meet the legal criteria you will have your @ss handed to you in court if you rear-ended someone and get sued.

 

Which references a minimum illumination level


In fact, there are multiple references to measuring intensity and having minimum standards

.

States usually go with the distance rule. Cali is 1000 feet but a lot of states are 500 feet for parking lights and 100 feet for stop lights. Problem is the wording of the law usually only sometimes states something like "clearly visible" which basically leaves it open to interpretation as to how visible is "clearly" Like I said before, being "too dark" is a matter of opinion. Park two cars at 1000 feet and put smoked lights on one. Which one is more clearly visible? If anything, leaving it up to interpretation allows police officers to make judgment calls on if your lights are too dark.

Of course, there may be a requirement that all vehicles must meet federal standards....which would require a minimum illumination method measured by a scientific method rather than a loose "visible at xx feet" rule.

Unless one tests under the same conditions as sae j222/j585e (I may have a copy at work) , you don't know if the lights are illegal or not. Since the federal code states a minimum level of illumination, one must think there is a point where the taillight is so heavily tinted it fails to meet federal legal highway standards even if state laws permit.


I don't know why we are talking about laws.....all I said was I hate driving behind cars with tinted taillights. I just move over a lane and problem solved. Tint away

 

I would be willing to bet the "minimum" illumination level is no grater than the distance required in the vc I listed (iow, you'd be better off using the distance to refute than the illumination level - either way, you'd lose the case with my car).

 

Okay, I was never referring to your car, but since you brought it up...how. In all seriousness...not trying to start a flame war, but a discussion since this is often discussed all over the net.

Say you were rear ended by me and I decide to challenge my being at fault due to your tinted taillights. I take you to court or whatever and state your tinted taillights caused the accident. I would simply stress that your lights were tinted over and over.

So now you would have to defend yourself. You state that your car would be legal according to (ca vc 24603(e) which reads.

So, what defines "plainly visible" what is the interpretation of that wording? Now, how do you go about proving that your lights are plainly visible at 1000 feet when I press the issue that I felt they were not? Again, leaves interpretation open to opinion based on what one feels is considered "plainly visible".

And would the fact that your lights are tinted cause a situation where the legal party would already be prejudiced against you more so that you would need to prove they were visible more than I would need to prove they are not? The notion of tinted taillights already hints to them being dark without even seeing them.

The federal vehicle code actually outlines a test procedure used to determine taillight compliance. You claim that I would lose if I tried this approach. So how could you proove then it met the federal illumination standards? Again, you could ask how I could prove it would not.




Personally, I don't think any tinted taillights would meet federal standards. But I would have a hard time proving this unless I were to test as defined by sae j222/585e. Even so, I have a hard time believing something like below would be perfectly legal.

 

^^^ you're overlooking a critical portion of the wording; tail"lamps" must be red in color (not lenses)... as you saw in the pic and vid I posted my lamps are clearly "red".

As for proving it in court, the car would obviously need to be available, or there would be a court order to have visibility verified (just like a fix it ticket when you correct the violations).

You would be shooting yourself in the foot using the defense that they weren't visible (because there would then be question as to whether you require vision lenses for driving and whether or not you were wearing them, now the onus is on you to prove you weren't at fault).

As to the pic you posted - I dont think that vehicle has leds and therefore its doubtful that the visibility would satisfy any regulation. However, mine are presently darker than the example I posted (those were old pics), but not so much so that they are any less visible.

I can tell you with all certainty that if you claim in court that my taillamps were not visible "enough" for you and therefore you rear-ended me, your vision wold be MUCH more in question than anything else. Judge and jury (as well as any third party verifier) would plainly be able to see the illumination of my tail"lamps" and that they are red in color .

 

Sorry, was away for a bit.

Unfortunately, I do not agree...but I guess we would continue on beating this horse until it was really dead.

Anyway this thread is about inoperable 3rd brake lights, so I don't want to keep hijacking

 

Before changing out 3rd brake lamp because it's not lighting up, fiddle with the slide connector in the roof of the trunk. I was able to gain lost continuity on my lamp by having someone apply brake while I twisted and turned (gently) the cable/connector just below the lamp. The problem seems to be a cheap connector, and not the lamp itself.

 

That seems to be the problem with ALOT of the electronics/lights in our cars. The window motor.. the seat adjustment motor. The head unit. The list goes on.

 

He was driving a large car and he was so close already that when I pressed on the brakes he couldnt see the other lights. So the third brake light flickered on and off then off. This gave him the impression that I let off the brakes. He then let off his brake and (fortunatly) bumped into my rear bumper. Needless to say I was beyond pissed since the stoplight was still red!

 

My brake light in the rear window was operating intermittently at best. Dealer wanted ~ $600 to replace, involving removing rear seat, rear window trim and package tray.


A slap on the rear window would sometimes cause all bulbs to come on, indicating a connection problem rather than a failed LED light. Check of accessible connections (under the cover in front of the trunk) detected no problems.


Decided to try to pull out and inspect the light using the shortcut technique. Pulled out the insulation around the light, drilled a 1" hole, using a hole saw, lined up with the pass. side screw, making sure all wires were out of the way and inserting a piece of wood on the back side to avoid going too far and destroying the light. Undid both screws (driver's side is accessible) and fished the light out of the adjacent access hole.


Hooked the light & harness to a 12V power supply and started wiggling wires and components. Quickly found that the wires were loose where they connected to the light. Appear to be push in terminals rather than soldered connections. Pushed them in firmly and crimped them tighter. Light was now on steady so reinstalled the light and harness in the car. Has now been functioning for ~ 6 months with no further problems.

 

I believe there is a tutorial somewhere to replace the lights, but this seems pretty useful. Take some pics?

 

The shortcut technique has been described in other posts. Sorry I can't provide any pictures, but I don't want to take things apart again if I don't have to. There are some pictures in the Haynes Repair Manual, but the suggestion to drill an access hole for the passenger side screw isn't here.

The main reason I posted this is that I was really happy at finding something that worked well and saved me over $600.