Maryland Judge Decrees Pontiac G8 GT Tail Lights Illegal

[rushnrockt]

I think some of you here will find this... interesting


http://jalopnik.com/5589270/maryland-judge-decrees-pontiac-g8-gt-tail-lights-illegal

 

[rushnrockt]

Nevermind, read the comments (who knew commenters do more research, right?) and apparently the lights were partially modified. So more or less a non-story

 

[-Virgil-]

Yeah, nice sensational headline, the text is poorly researched -- there's no such thing as "DOT approval" -- and once somebody bothered to do the small bit of fact checking the article's author should have done (but didn't), it turns out the alleged victim of the alleged judicial tyranny is an idiot kid who "retrofitted" LEDs (yeah, I'll bet) and put black covers on them. He deserves every ticket he gets.

 

[fyrstormer]

There is DOT certification, but USDOT only certifies manufacturers as being competent and trustworthy to produce road-legal automotive light assemblies, not the assemblies themselves as being road-legal. That's why the presence or lack of a DOT marking on a specific light assembly means virtually nothing.

 

[daloosh]

The pictures tell the truth. That is so not stock.
daloosh

 

[-Virgil-]

There is DOT certification, but USDOT only certifies manufacturers as being competent and trustworthy to produce road-legal automotive light assemblies, not the assemblies themselves as being road-legal. That's why the presence or lack of a DOT marking on a specific light assembly means virtually nothing.

Incorrect. USDOT does not certify anyone or anything. The manufacturer or importer of a vehicle or regulated piece of equipment is the party who certifies that the vehicle or equipment meets all applicable provisions of all applicable requirements. There is no requirement for any particular testing or other procedure before such certification is made, but the certification comes with full legal liability. It is entirely up to the manufacturer or importer to do whatever testing will satisfy himself that the device or vehicle actually meets the requirements. It is a self-certification regulatory regime in North America, and always has been. This is in contrast to a type-approval regime (e.g. Europe, Japan, China) under which government-accredited technical service agencies test a submitted device or whole vehicle according to the applicable regulations, and if it passes they grant a type approval, and then the device or vehicle is legal for sale.

Presence or absence of "DOT" on a lighting device is more complicated than your understanding. On a headlamp (and only on a headlamp), the "DOT" marking is the manufacturer's certification that the headlamp is compliant. There are other markings required on various kinds of headlamps -- sealed beams have to have their type designator (2B1, 1A1, LF, etc.), replaceable-bulb headlamps have to have their bulb type (HB2, D2R, etc.), and visual/optical-aim headlamps must have their aim type (VO, VOL, VOR). No marking is required on any other lamp or reflective device; marking "DOT" on a fog lamp is permitted because fog lamps aren't federally regulated, and marking "DOT" on a taillamp is permitted because any non-mandatory marking is permitted, but it doesn't mean anything. There are SAE function markings which, likewise, are not required but are permitted to be there. The idea is that the taillamps, turn signals, etc. are covered by the manufacturer's statement of compliance, found on the driver's door or doorframe, which reads "This vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, anti-theft, and bumper standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown on this label".

 

[fyrstormer]

Interesting. I thought USDOT at least verified that manufacturers were aware of federal regulations regarding headlights and taillights. So they don't do anything at all to ensure regulations are being met? No wonder cops have so much leeway, and why they can almost always use headlight/taillight infractions as ways to punish people who are being annoying on the road.

 

[rushnrockt]

Yeah, nice sensational headline, the text is poorly researched -- there's no such thing as "DOT approval" -- and once somebody bothered to do the small bit of fact checking the article's author should have done (but didn't), it turns out the alleged victim of the alleged judicial tyranny is an idiot kid who "retrofitted" LEDs (yeah, I'll bet) and put black covers on them. He deserves every ticket he gets.

Come to think of it, this is still an interesting article from a different perspective now. I always hear about LED/HID/whatever changes to lights be "just fine" because police does not do anything about it. So apparently, sometimes they do and however rare it is, I am glad there is an example.

 

[-Virgil-]

Interesting. I thought USDOT at least verified that manufacturers were aware of federal regulations regarding headlights and taillights.

Nope.

So they don't do anything at all to ensure regulations are being met?

If reason arises to believe a particular vehicle or piece of regulated vehicle equipment is not in compliance -- usually "reason" means injuries, deaths, newsworthy crashes, or consumer complaints -- USDOT may purchase and test samples of the vehicle or equipment in question. If noncompliance is found, they can order the manufacturer or importer to recall and repair or replace the noncompliant equipment, or in the case of aftermarket parts, repair or replace or refund it. They can also levy substantial civil penalties in the form of fines.

No wonder cops have so much leeway

One has nothing to do with the other. Vehicle owners and registered vehicles are regulated at the state level, not by the Federal standards. Some states' vehicle codes contain requirements that include the Federal regulatory text, usually by reference. And states aren't permitted to have codes more stringent than the Federal code -- a vehicle or item of regulated equipment manufacturer-certified as compliant with all applicable Federal standards is street-legal in all 50 states, period. For example, the Federal code permits rear turn signals to emit red or amber light. A state, therefore, cannot require that rear turn signals emit only amber light (or only red light, or only green light...). However, states are free to regulate the use of vehicles, so a state would be entirely free to prohibit the use of fog lamps under any circumstances, for example.

 

[alpg88]

here by me you can do pretty much anything to your car, as long as all lights work you're fine, huge number of cars have those hid kits, some have green turn signals, blue back up bulbs..ect, ppl really express themselves, and nobody seems to ticket them. i drove my old car with broken taillight lens taped with red tape, not once cops said anything about it.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

here by me you can do pretty much anything to your car, as long as all lights work you're fine,

No, no, no.

huge number of cars have those hid kits, some have green turn signals, blue back up bulbs..ect, ppl really express themselves, and nobody seems to ticket them.

Then the police aren't doing their jobs. It does not make what the modders are doing legal.
There's "expressing yourself" and then there's being a complete dumbass.

i drove my old car with broken taillight lens taped with red tape, not once cops said anything about it.

The tape is a stopgap; the vehicle may fail inspection like that. Next time you have a broken taillight lens, get it fixed-- you're not the only one on the road.

 

[alpg88]

No, no, no..

yes, if you got burned out bulb, you'll get pulled over, otherways no. not saying it is the law, but that is how things are.

Then the police aren't doing their jobs. It does not make what the modders are doing legal.
There's "expressing yourself" and then there's being a complete dumbass..

idk, with murders, rapes, burglaries, drugs and gangs, may be they have different priorities, than light bulbs. we got 10 mil. people, cops got things to do.

The tape is a stopgap; the vehicle may fail inspection like that. Next time you have a broken taillight lens, get it fixed-- you're not the only one on the road.

that car was junked many years ago, my brand new cars i try to keep in better shape than tape over lights.

sure i'm not the only one, there are idiots with hid kit, green, and blue bulbs out there.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

idk, with murders, rapes, burglaries, drugs and gangs, may be they have different priorities, than light bulbs. we got 10 mil. people, cops got things to do.

Like investigate traffic accidents involving fatalities because Mr. Greensignal modded his car, and Mr. Hidkit didn't recognize that he was turning.

sure i'm not the only one, there are idiots with hid kit, green, and blue bulbs out there.

And idiots not enforcing the law like they should.

 

[alpg88]

Like investigate traffic accidents involving fatalities because Mr. Greensignal modded his car, and Mr. Hidkit didn't recognize that he was turning.



And idiots not enforcing the law like they should.

it may be true, or it may be not true, what if he just didn't signal, would thing be any different?
also how the hell you don't recognize the car is turning???? whats next you don't recognize the car is moving just cuz you didn't see the wheels spinning???
he saw the car, he should be able to see which direction it is going.
if he cut him off, that is one thing, if he didn't see him coming is other thing, but not to recognize a car was Turing ...
sorry but that is really irresponsible driving. may be Mr. Hidkit shouldn't be driving.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Suppose, then, that every car on the road had different colored lights, or even mismatched colors. How are we supposed to tell the difference between a brake light and a reverse light? Or a turn signal and a headlight? We have laws regarding vehicle lighting for a reason.

 

[alpg88]

Suppose, then, that every car on the road had different colored lights, or even mismatched colors. How are we supposed to tell the difference between a brake light and a reverse light? Or a turn signal and a headlight? We have laws regarding vehicle lighting for a reason.

i agree, but there is such a concept as defencive driving, strangely i don't know of any accident because of green lights, or blue reverse lights, hell even fake hid, while annoying, didn't cause accidents that i know of.
but guess what does, lack of attention, "i don't give a poop" attitude, "hell no you ain't cutting me off", attitude, and road rage.
when ppl drive and see a car with fake hid that blinds them, or a rolling christmas tree, ppl tend to be more cautious, and alert, than a car that blends in, and doesn't stand out, it is almost always the one you don't see that gets you.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

strangely i don't know of any accident because of green lights, or blue reverse lights, hell even fake hid, while annoying, didn't cause accidents that i know of.

Because YOU don't know of any such accidents does not make a difference here. Just because you have limited experience with the world does not mean that what you have seen of it is an example for us all.

but guess what does, lack of attention, "i don't give a poop" attitude, "hell no you ain't cutting me off", attitude, and road rage.

Part of the IdgaS attitude is the illegal modifications-- and even defending or at the very least tacitly approving them.

when ppl drive and see a car with fake hid that blinds them, or a rolling christmas tree, ppl tend to be more cautious, and alert, than a car that blends in, and doesn't stand out, it is almost always the one you don't see that gets you.

A specious argument at best. When EVERY car "stands out", every car "blends in", getting us right back to where we started. Additionally, someone being hyper-alert regarding that one vehicle may then be distracted from the nondescript vehicle, which becomes the one that gets them.

 

[alpg88]

Because YOU don't know of any such accidents does not make a difference here. Just because you have limited experience with the world does not mean that what you have seen of it is an example for us all..

have you??? i have not seen everything, but enough, i,ve seen numbers of accidents on police reports, 1000's i used to have job related to accidents, not once modified equipment came into play,
thou i agree i've not seen everything, but if it happened i'd see at least 1 report.

Part of the IdgaS attitude is the illegal modifications-- and even defending or at the very least tacitly approving them..

that is your interpretation.

A specious argument at best. When EVERY car "stands out", every car "blends in", getting us right back to where we started. Additionally, someone being hyper-alert regarding that one vehicle may then be distracted from the nondescript vehicle, which becomes the one that gets them.

but you know in real world things aren't even close to what you just wrote, the when hasn't happen, not every car stands out, and not every blends in. and most likely never will. it is a what if argument not real world situation.

so your argument now is specious argument.

btw i never defended illegal modifications, you assume i did, which is total false. show me one clear worded statement that i approve of illegal mods, i said they exist. i said you'd be fine, as in not get pulled over, but i didn't say it is fine to install green light,
i got impression that you defend irresponsible driving. or was it a bad example???

 

[-Virgil-]

Alaric D, you may want to pause for a moment and consider whether there's anything to be gained by arguing with a juvenile who lacks even rudimentary grasp of grammar, syntax, and logic.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

So true, Scheinwerfermann.

I suppose all we can do is wait for someone with something to contribute.