anyone get pulled over for 99 spec tailights?
 

I got pulled over this afternoon for tinted tailights. I tried to explain to the officer that the tail lights were stock and that these cars were sold with the lights. His solution was for me to go to the dealership and buy clear tailights and I will not get pulled over anymore. I didn't want to further argue, so I told him I understood his reasoning. After he checked my record and saw it was clean he had to leave to attend to an accident. He hit the lights drove about 1/2 a block and turned them off. I was thankful, but now I do not know what to do.
I called the police station and explained that these lights are spec but he said if the cop pulled me over its questionable and thus have to be fixed. He told me that sometimes dealerships with illgeally modify cars and sell them in that condition, but they are still illegal.
So has anyone else been pulled over for this? What about the 93' specs? The irony is that I like the older ones better anyway.
The last thing I need is to be pulled over at all!

Oh ya I forgot to mention the first week I lived here I got pulled over in my Mazda 3 with tinted tailights for a wide turn.
The cop gave me no ticket and when I aksed him point blank if there was anything I needed to do to keep the police in the area from profiling my car he said 1st he didnt profile me and 2 there was nothing wrong or shady with the car.

hmm stop tinting your tail lights? lmao


or your saying he thought stock FD tail lights are tinted because they appear to be dark?

That seems to happen down there often. Just cops exercising their power.

The cops are saying mt FD lights are tinted.

Gracer, so what do you do? I need to mitigate getting pulled over in the first place, lol.

Sounds like you didn't even get a ticket? No ticket, no foul. Keep playing the game. Just a cop having a bad day. I doubt you'll get pulled over again for that.

just get it signed off by a CHP officer.

next time tell them thats why the bumpers have reflectors on them

Do you have authentic 99 spec taillights?

This is the reason why i'd rather have my converted 99' tails rather than authentic. Our stock taillights are DOT approved and have them stamped on the lights.

FD tail lights seem pretty dark compared to most cars, but I've never, or heard of anyone I know get pulled over because of it..that's crazy you go pulled over twice though. Maybe they just wanted a closer look at your CYM, it is pretty nice ya know :dunno:

All FD tails are gonna be dark. nothing you can do. If they ticket it you bring a million pictures of stock FD tail lights

I've got this sooooo handled
 

Ever seen an Lexus RX430 taillights? The are 100% clear with silver reflectors, but when the tail or brake lights light up, they shine red. What are the final pieces that makes them legal? Two red reflectors in the rear bumper. VC 24607 and VC 25970 are the laws that affirm the stock RX430 tails are legal.

All three of my Verts have smoked tails and they are perfectly legal. Why, because S5 tails (not S4) also have a red reflector in either of them (thus the two needed to meet legal specs) and the smoke does not change the fact that they shine red when lite up and are still "plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear".

In other words, if you have smoked tails (or tails that otherwise don't reflect red) you just need two reflectors "visible at night from all distances within 350 to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of the lawful upper headlamp beams." and mounted where "one shall be mounted at the left side and one at the right side, respectively, at the same level. Required reflectors shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 60 inches"


If you have smoked S4 tails (or tails on any car that doesn't otherwise have the red reflectors), then go to Pep Boys and buy and mount a couple of those red reflector licence plate attachments. That should technically get you into compliance with VC24607.

Go to www.dmv.ca.gov and print out the the sections for VC 25950 (Color of Lamps and Reflectors) and VC 24607 (Reflectors on Rear) and carry them in your car. If you (or anyone else for that matter in this situation) get hassled you just show these to the cop to prove your tails are in legal compliance.







Cut and paste so you know what I'm talking about:


Reflectors on Rear

24607. Every vehicle subject to registration under this code shall at all times be equipped with red reflectors mounted on the rear as follows:
(a) Every vehicle shall be equipped with at least one reflector so maintained as to be plainly visible at night from all distances within 350 to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of the lawful upper headlamp beams.
(b) Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle or a low-speed vehicle , manufactured and first registered on or after January 1, 1965, shall be equipped with at least two reflectors meeting the visibility requirements of subdivision (a), except that trailers and semitrailers manufactured after July 23, 1973, that are less than 30 inches wide, may be equipped with one reflector which shall be mounted at or near the vertical centerline of the trailer. If the vehicle is equipped with two reflectors, they shall be mounted as specified in subdivision (d).
(c) Every motortruck having an unladen weight of more than 5,000 pounds, every trailer coach, every camp trailer, every vehicle, or vehicle at the end of a combination of vehicles, subject to subdivision (a) of Section 22406, and every vehicle 80 or more inches in width manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, shall be equipped with at least two reflectors maintained so as to be plainly visible at night from all distances within 600 feet to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of lawful upper headlamp beams.
(d) When more than one reflector is required, at least one shall be mounted at the left side and one at the right side, respectively, at the same level. Required reflectors shall be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than 60 inches, except that a tow truck, in addition to being equipped with the required reflectors, may also be equipped with two reflectors which may be mounted not lower than 15 inches nor higher than the maximum allowable vehicle height and as far forward as the rearmost portion of the driver's seat in the rearmost position. Additional reflectors of a type meeting requirements established by the department may be mounted at any height.
(e) Reflectors on truck tractors may be mounted on the rear of the cab. Any reflector installed on a vehicle as part of its original equipment prior to January 1, 1941, need not meet the requirements of the department provided it meets the visibility requirements of subdivision (a).
(f) Area reflectorizing material may be used in lieu of the reflectors required or permitted in subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), provided each installation is of sufficient size to meet the photometric requirement for those reflectors.

Amended Ch. 216, Stats. 1990. Effective January 1, 1991.
Amended Sec. 36, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.
Amended Sec. 7, Ch. 140, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.

Color of Lamps and Reflectors

25950. This section applies to the color of lamps and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination. Unless provided otherwise, the color of lamps and reflectors upon a vehicle shall be as follows:
(a) The emitted light from all lamps and the reflected light from all reflectors, visible from in front of a vehicle, shall be white or yellow, except as follows:
(1) Rear side marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show red to the front.
(2) The color of foglamps described in Section 24403 may be in the color spectrum from white to yellow.
(3) An illuminating device, as permitted under Section 24255, shall emit radiation predominantly in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Any incidental visible light projecting to the front of the vehicle shall be predominantly yellow to white. Any incidental visible light projecting to the rear of the vehicle shall be predominantly red. Any incidental visible light from an illuminating device, as permitted under Section 24255, shall not resemble any other required or permitted lighting device or official traffic control device.
(b) The emitted light from all lamps and the reflected light from all reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red except as follows:
(1) Stoplamps on vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1979, may show yellow to the rear.
(2) Turn signal lamps may show yellow to the rear.
(3) Front side marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show yellow to the rear.
(4) Backup lamps shall show white to the rear.
(5) The rearward facing portion of a front-mounted double-faced turn signal lamp may show amber to the rear while the headlamps or parking lamps are lighted, if the intensity of the light emitted is not greater than the parking lamps and the turn signal function is not impaired.
(6) A reflector meeting the requirements of and installed in accordance with Section 24611 shall be red or white, or both.
(c) All lamps and reflectors visible from the front, sides, or rear of a vehicle, except headlamps, may have any unlighted color, provided the emitted light from all lamps or reflected light from all reflectors complies with the required color. Except for backup lamps, the entire effective projected luminous area of lamps visible from the rear or mounted on the sides near the rear of a vehicle shall be covered by an inner lens of the required color when the unlighted color differs from the required emitted light color. Taillamps, stoplamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted on vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1974.

Amended Sec. 38, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 198, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.

lmao Jon you do have it covered. ;) initially reading hypertek's answer for the cops i thought he was crazy but now there is proof.

i am not sure if i would directly show the cop the paperwork, as to not piss him off and have him ask me to pop the hood...but it should work on the fix it ticket end. good stuff!

I wouldn't show the print outs to the cop in a manner saying for him/her to eat dirt you ignorant SOB. Rather, you are simply confirming how careful you are to respect the law and at the same in a respectful way fill an ignorance void that cop may otherwise have.

Thus one of those "Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" things.:):icon_tup:

Print out Hozzman's post and keep it in your glove box. If you get pulled over again simply explain that you have been pulled over in the past and this is why you keep this piece of paper (with all the VC codes) with you.

The cop will see you obviously know how to do research regarding whats legal and what isnt and he will probably be less inclined to further hassle you.

Cops will write BS tickets to stupid people. If you said something like, "ummmmm... i dont know, i bought the car this way officer" He probably would of said, "yup, they're tinted. Here is your fix it ticket..." Fumanchu probably writes tinted tail light tickets to FD owners every chance he gets. Just out of spite :lol:

I use mechanical violations as an excuse to further investigate a shady car or driver. Rarely do I write a citation for mechanical violations unless the driver is a dick, or I am already giving them a ticket for something else.

Fisa what is the F**king point in working hard, obeying the law, paying your income tax and being a good person in life when the local PD does this kind of crap.

This stuff really pisses me off!!! If you were driving a vintage lowrider classic with blacked out lights and the rear bumper 1.5 inches off the ground you would not get this kinda treatment.

If the police officer was not profiling your car then what the F**K was he doing???

Profiling and racial stereotyping is a common factor in our world. Don't waste your time and breath on this one Just print out the DMV shit and just go to your nearest Po po station and have them right it off for you.

California local leader and officials need to find better ways to generate revenues for our broke ass state instead of harassing hard working citizens who obviously support the system.

California SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is no longer the Golden state of opportunity!!!!!!

Fisa best of luck

^+1

thats understandable. anyone want to trade me 99 specs for the 93s?

Fisa you are outta your F**king Mind!!!!!!!!! just have this thing corrected and signed off at a local PD and get on with your normal life. Don't sweat this minor issue. Bad luck led to meeting a police officer who actually wasted your time and
our tax money with this issue.

BTW i have a set of 93 set re-polished and i'll even install it for you if you want!!!!!!!:)

Hey Mike,

I might take you up on those. You already have 99 specs though right? The ones on my car have a small chip on the driver's side.

I did a little more searching and it does seem the tail lights have to be red

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24600.htm

"(e) Taillamps shall be red in color and shall be plainly visible from all distances within 500 feet to the rear except that taillamps on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, shall be plainly visible from all distances within 1,000 feet to the rear. "

I think this is the reasoning a ticket would be given. While I might have enough red with the reflector lights, the 500 ft distance could be arguable (during the day) depending on the viewer's opinion.

If the lights are stock, and the car was legal in California at time of sale, the lights are legal. Only with very, VERY rare exception have vehicle code changes required retrofit of existing cars to meet newer regulations. Virtually all existing cars are "grandfathered" for such things.

I can understand not wanting to be hassled by tickets from officers that don't realize what a stock RX7 from that year looked like (kind of understandable, there are not many around), but I personally would stand on my rights on this one, rather than modify a LEGAL part of my car to avoid harassment by overzealous enforcement.

If you get stopped, just calmly explain the situation: The lights are OEM for that year, are stock, DOT approved, and perfectly legal.

If you get a ticket, fight it, get it overturned and signed off, and use that as proof if you get stopped again.

With all respect to the folks with the badges, they should not be stopping and questioning people who are going about their proper business without adequate cause. And in my book, the officer not knowing what is and isn't legal for a specific vehicle, is NOT adequate cause. If they are not sure, they should not stop an otherwise law-abiding person.

I already had referenced this VC section in my mongo post.

Key word, taillamps (as in emitted light), not tail light lense. As long as they light up red, you're good. Also, you're only required to turn on your headlights at dusk and thereafter until dawn as well as the odd night like situations such as fog, tunnels, etc. So the 1000 foot measure would be a night time measure. This is all about being able to see your car's presence clearly to the driver behind you within at least 1000 feet range.

Brake lights is obviously an day or night. But they are SO bright, as it relates to smoking the tails, as long as you don't go "Limo" tint you should be fine.

Again, reference the Lexus RX430 stock taillight as the perfect example.

And to follow up on DD's comment "the officer not knowing what is and isn't legal for a specific vehicle, is NOT adequate cause". Any judge will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse. That legal fact cuts both ways.

keep us posted

What if you had the Mazda brochure in your car and whipped it out in front of Fumanchu and was like, "BAM! It's stock sucka!"