ticket for tinted tail lights, and a call for help!!

True, but the "C" is the sportier car, so topics about modifications that may or may not be legal will happen more here. The regular guys shouldn't get all huffy about it. Help or don't help and move along. No sense in getting your own undies in a bunch.

 

The topic of this thread was for help from another Prius C owner and has gone way off topic. So as I suggested in an earlier post that if this conversation was to go on it should be in a new thread. Everyone has taken it so far off topic that it's now a thread hijack and fairly rude and inconsiderate to the OP. Just sayin'.

 

Not necessarily, but brake lights certainly come on during the day. And there are reflectors back there that are supposed to work during the day.

 

Considering that many sites (possibly even this one) have policies against asking for help committing crimes or engaging in illegal activity, it is not surprising that the thread became 'derailed' from the original intent of the OP.

 

You realize you're a marked car now. Getting the ticket signed off this time and returning to tinted tail lights will get you a second ticket and this time the penalty is doubled and there won't be any signing off. You are a previous offender.
BTW why in the heck do you want tinted tail lights? if they are black or nearly so you get no sympathy here. my cop guys would give you a ticket yesterday for unsafe mod.

 

They aren't blacked out.... they are smoked... come on guys... the reflector still works. The brake lights are brighter than the tail lights... they are visible.

 

OMG We all drive a PRIUS, can we all get along, we are more educated than those Honda Civic people so please don't attack the OP..... I am backing the OP...

 

Come on Folks, even Japanese Toyota Prius has smoke taillight options...

 

The quote you picked was attacking everyone except the OP...

 

There are a number of officers out there with modded street cars that are not legal; guarantee you'll find one in their parking lots at the police station with tint violations or other modification violations; they just happen to be in a position where they don't have issue with receiving citations; so this is actaully illegal activity in itself as they are not applying the law equally. But yes, the second, third, fourth violations will cost more.

And to the whole safety thing I think it's over exaggerated. Half the people on the road don't know how to drive in the first place so lets blame DMV for making it too easy to get a liscense. How many people use their signal lights...not many. How many people have bike rikes that obstruct the liscense plate and tail lights when a bike is on the hitch? If anyone has their windows tinted then they have obstructed the view as well no mater if it is legal or not. We can go on and on. In the end the OP is simply making a donation to the broke state of California either way this ends up.

PS - Damn those peeps with the baby on board signs that drive like speed racer! There, had to get that one off my chest, ROFL!!!

PPS - I'm only going on and on as well since no one wants to get back on topic. Plus it boosts my post number, ha! I'll be sure to give my fellow Prii drivers a "california wave" this afternoon.

 

Do they not serve a daylight function when you hit the brakes? Do you not brake during the day? I'm assuming the entire tail light assembly is tinted.

 

Ok, how about this scenario... You are driving around with tinted tail lights minding your business. You're stopped at a red light. Bam, someone plows into the back of your beautiful modded Prius. You're severely injured as well.

The insurance company denies your claim because you had illegally tinted tail lights on your car. Implausible? I think not...

My wife was stopped behind a car. Someone in a van blew through an intersection and rammed her car so hard, it wedged her car under the back of a pickup truck so far that the rear axle was above her front doors. The impact was such that 3 cars in front were damaged as well. The insurance company had the nerve to ask her how far she was stopped from the car in front of her. Like they were implying that there would have been less cars involved if she had left more distance between herself and the truck in front of her. Unbelievable.

I can only believe that the insurance adjuster/company would have been extremely happy if she had illegally tinted tail lights on her car.

SCH-I535

 

Brake lights and tail lights are two different things. Brake lights shine brighter... and with all the chrome around these things smoking them actually helps diffuse some of the blinding that happens in overcast dear god it's bright moments.

You are correct and I'm sure the OP knows this...

 

It's a binary issue.
Legal. or Illegal.

..... or is it?

I don't really have a flag to defend here because I can see how things look from the scofflaw's trenches, also and I get the idea that if there's no law then Darwinian mechanics will take its rightful place.
I have two Motorcycles, so I get the modding thing. My Kawi is bone stock, but the V-ROD has been mildly modified.
Am I legal?
I checked.
The answer is yes and no, but we'll get to that in a minute.
A friend who also rides yanked the reflectors off of his bike and almost immediately got a ticket.
Why?
Because unlike my exhaust and intake mods, his "mods" (seemingly) violated DOT regulations, that unlike my mods, do not vary from state to state....and here's the part that he still hasn't figured out yet.
The reflectors are there to make him visible to OTHER DRIVERS.
It's like all of the people who don't know why you should turn your lights on in the rain.
..."I don't need to do that. I can see just fine!"

Exhaust mods are a little different because noise ordinances vary from state to state, BUT emissions regulations most assuredly do NOT! .....so technically.......ANY exhaust mod (including the goofy tips that you see) "can" be considered to be a violation of federal law.
I considered all of this before I modified my exhaust, and bought and still have (7 years later) my 100-percent pristine unmodified OEM exhaust.
THAT way....if they change the law, or if I move to some "worker's paradise" like SoCal, I'll be able to ride unmolested.
Note to Eco-Nazis: My bike still has a Cat and a vapor canister.
SO.....there you are. Big Brothah stomps down with a pretty heavy boot sometimes, and I know it's unfair, and so forth
The LAW is kinda flexible in some places....but less so with the DOT thing and lighting.
Deal.
So....if I were the OP, I'd buy a set of unmodified OEMs and keep them in the closet.
You'll probably get away with that for a while, because SoCal can't even keep repeat drunk drivers off the road.
Just make sure that you do not have anything in your car that you don't want LEO to see, because your "modified" car is a BIG BRIGHT BEACON(pun almost unintended) that tells LEO that you're a scofflaw....



Good Luck!

 

I disagree about the whole emissions comment, they are not universal across the states; California is one of the strictest states in the country due to the number of vehicles and enviornmental effects. It's one of the reasons our special blend gas boosts our gas prices. But yes, the decible output is a whole 'nuther ball game.

There we go, the solution at this point is to either remove the tint if it's film, pay the fine and do what he wants, or purchase a new set of alternative covers and make the choice on how he wants to proceed afterwards.

By the way, I looked at some other threads in the Prius Chat and some of the members are consistent with their opions which I can respect (not totally agree, but respect), however one particular thread on tinting the windshield had no big stones thrown...odd as that is could be worse than tail lights. Not sparking a debate, but more of an observation.

 

Legal or illegal... still not the question... the question was can you help?

The majority of Georgia doesn't require emissions checking, so it's free reign on the exhaust changes.

He drives a Bright Orange car... so yes... it's a Beacon.

 

Yeah...right.
Free reign.
I'll betcha there's a federal law or regulation that makes it illegal to tamper with OEM emissions equipment. Now....is this an "important" law or just a mattress tag law?
YMMV.
We all breathe the same air, so enviro-Nazis would probably lean more towards important, but if you go to LoudhawgsRkwell.com...then they'd probably not classify 50-state emissions regulations as important.
All of this is regardless...or irregardless...of whether you live in a state that has or enforces a VET...or Vehicle Emmissions Testing, which, according to you, excludes the state of Georgia.

 

Not the entire state... there's that reading comprehension again...

So you can't help the OP?

 

Well this has been an interesting thread and debate IMO. And part of the reason it's been interesting is clearly it's not as binary as Legal or Illegal for a lot of people.

Even though tinted tail lights are a modification to a vehicle that I think it obviously at least unnecessary, potentially at worse dangerous....I honestly believe the reality falls somewhere in between the two extremes.

I suspect part of the problem is with enforcement. Tail light tint violation, with all the priorities placed upon police officers, is probably a violation they don't waste a lot of time enforcing. It probably most often does get ignored, and or only ticketed as an "add on" violation after some other infraction has occurred. Which leads to the situation that we actually have here, which is someone who has tinted their tail lights for numerous years and "gotten away with it". Unfortunately this leads to the feeling, if and when they do get ticketed, that the violation is somehow unfair, or simply a "fluke". Which further leads to the feeling that perpetrating misrepresentation and fraud in an effort to get this "fluke" of a violations fine reduced...is acceptable.

I think you can blame the inconsistency of enforcement to an extent. Imagine if tail light tint violations were more aggressively enforced. Simply- nobody would do it. If you were getting pulled over every month, and routinely fined, over and over, there wouldn't exist the idea that it is an acceptable practice. It is the idea and reality that people have gone multiple years without being cited, that creates the justification to continue the practice.

Believe it or not, I try to be fair in my evaluation. At my age? I have no desire to tint my tail lights. The end result I think is a change in outward vehicle cosmetics, that "MAY" affect functional safety. And it's a cosmetic look that I don't think is worth the risk, either as a potential ticket or violation, nor as a "plus" to the vehicles look or value or function.

But that's just me.

Philosophically, I want to side with those wishing to express individualism and creativity, whether I agree with it or not as a viable or reasonable....or maybe even "legal" final product. I certainly do think the police should have higher priorities in daily operation than pulling over the occasional vehicle with darkened tail lights. However I understand the converse to this as well, which is that the laws however poorly or inconsistently enforced- do exist for a reason.

Haven't you hung around the internet and community based "chat" forums enough to realize that often a thread, or discussion goes way beyond the parameters of the original post?

Personally that's what I like about it.

The original question might of been "Can" you help? But the ensuing discussion has been "Can", "Would", and "Should" you help?

As often happens the discussion expanded. I think that is good. For those supporting the modification and the idea of committing misrepresentation in an effort to get a fine reduced? The question cannot be Legal or Illegal, because the answer to that is simple....illegal.