Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is simple, we have too many who think modern day police are going to protect them. We also have too many people who believe the lie that police are justified in violating your right to travel without restriction or harassment. They have plenty of tax dollars for their equipment. but you have over paid police boards and heads of police depts. that want to be able to play kings. And that is more what laws like this are about than safety. You can not tell me that when a blacked out light lights up it does not get more attention than an always red one. The blacked out lens covers it, but when the lights pop on out of nowhere, you notice it quicker than the always red tailight lens.
they won't harrass you as long as you obey the law it's pretty simple. yes the red one is better because it reflects light and is easier to see and if state law says no to blacked out tail lights then yeah he should of got fined. plus the fact he lied in court of law knowing he did something wrong makes the guy even worse.
and from what I have heard is no police forces in some states are cutting back funding and forcing cops to find other jobs or into early retirement and in some states they are telling people to not even bother to call 9-11 because the cops won't show unless it is a serious crime because of lack of resources.
Basically the judge was enforcing our laws as well as the police which is what we pay them for. Looks like the dishonesty is in the postig the original thread really. The giuy is free to appeal it higher if he wants but he really should be thankful if he lied on the stand he wasn't charge with that too.
Actually, even though the taillights themselves were darkened, the car still meets the letter of the law by having the stock red rear reflectors uncovered. The problematic part is the judge's statement that it doesn't matter if the car DID meet federal law, they could still ticket it.
Quote:
The judge actualy told me she didn't care what the manufacturer said, what the federal govt said, what the DOT # stamped onto my taillights said if the officer says my lights aren't legal then they're not legal. She found me guilty of failing to display or reflect red light on the rear of the car. Didn't matter the reflecters were in the bumper, didn't matter where the light is has that little red circle, the whole lens isn't red so they're not legal.
Which is an issue for owners of cars like the new Mazda 3:
(a) Reflectors - In general.- Every reflector on any vehicle referred to in § 22-208 of this subtitle shall be of such size and characteristics and so maintained as to be readily visible at nighttime from all distances within 600 feet to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps.
(b) Reflectors - Side and rear.- Reflectors required to be mounted on the sides of the vehicle shall reflect the required color of light to the sides, and those mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear.
(1) After July 1, 1971, every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, and any special mobile equipment being towed, shall carry on the rear, either as part of the tail lamps or separately, two or more red reflectors meeting the requirements of this section, except that:
(b) Placement; visibility.- Every reflector shall be mounted on the vehicle at a height of not more than 60 inches nor less than 15 inches and shall be of such size and characteristics and so mounted as to be visible at night from all distances within 600 feet to 100 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps, except that visibility from a greater distance is hereinafter required of reflectors on certain types of vehicles. When two reflectors are required they shall be as widely spaced laterally as practicable.
NOTHING about reflectors required to be mounted in the tail lights themselves.
If he has the reflectors still there then he's still good. Nothing illegal about LEDs, so long as the stock reflector isn't removed. And the stock reflectors are there. So according to MD state law, he IS legal, even with the modded taillights.
This isn't new, either. Here in MD, people have been tickets for the factory wings on EVO's and STi's. They do tend to think that their officers and judges can supercede federal law in these cases.
Actually, even though the taillights themselves were darkened, the car still meets the letter of the law by having the stock red rear reflectors uncovered. The problematic part is the judge's statement that it doesn't matter if the car DID meet federal law, they could still ticket it.
Provided that's what the judge actually said, which I'm particularly inclined to doubt since the guy was exposed as being FOS.
they won't harrass you as long as you obey the law it's pretty simple. yes the red one is better because it reflects light and is easier to see and if state law says no to blacked out tail lights then yeah he should of got fined. plus the fact he lied in court of law knowing he did something wrong makes the guy even worse.
and from what I have heard is no police forces in some states are cutting back funding and forcing cops to find other jobs or into early retirement and in some states they are telling people to not even bother to call 9-11 because the cops won't show unless it is a serious crime because of lack of resources.
And they are having the cops to write more tickets no matter how silly the supposed crime, real or not.
And they are having the cops to write more tickets no matter how silly the supposed crime, real or not.
It was clear cut, the guy was guilty. He then went on to lie on forums trying to get sympaty as if he was wronged and the whole forum proves that guy was a bull **** artist, straight up lied to them and flat out deserved worse then what he got. You think the cops and judge were over-bearing based on what the car owner says? LOL, that guy's a liar. He lied to you from the start, but you think he is describing how the cop and judge handled him as gosspel?
I have been pulled over by cops 3 or 4 times. All of which were justified and I knew I done wrong. Surprisingly, all times they gave me a warning and let me go. I guess they got enough money that day??? I just thought they were trying to keep the streets safe myself and sometimes a little reminder that you can get caught breaking traffic laws is all that's needed to keep people honest.
Is there a tail light transmittance requirement? How dark can they go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Actually, even though the taillights themselves were darkened, the car still meets the letter of the law by having the stock red rear reflectors uncovered. The problematic part is the judge's statement that it doesn't matter if the car DID meet federal law, they could still ticket it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
