|
|
|
Tinting Rear Brake light
- Thread starter Joz
- Start date
Why? You want to simulate the "no tailight look"?
Somehow you hope to convince the "they" out there that your badas s car has no tailights? I mean, it's not like every single road legal vehicle manufactured has them.....
It sure would look alot cooler without a tailight, wouldn't it?
Wow. What's next? Underglow and angel eyes?
Somehow you hope to convince the "they" out there that your badas s car has no tailights? I mean, it's not like every single road legal vehicle manufactured has them.....
It sure would look alot cooler without a tailight, wouldn't it?
Wow. What's next? Underglow and angel eyes?
Do you plan on compensating for the tint by installing seriously brighter running and brake light bulbs? Even just a light homemade tint with no lighting upgrade will make your brake lights/turn signals much more difficult to see in daylight, and it will also cut down on nighttime visibility as well. The passive reflectors will also take a hit.
Of course none of this is a problem if you don't mind your car being run into.
Rear lamps to illuminate number plate
(19) The lamp on the rear of a motor vehicle or trailer shall be of at least three candela and shall be so placed that it will, at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, illuminate the numbers on the number plate, or, if provision is made on the number plate or on any attachment furnished or required by the Ministry for affixing the lamp, it shall be affixed in the position or space provided, and the lamp shall face to the rear and reflect on the number plate a white light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (19).
(19) The lamp on the rear of a motor vehicle or trailer shall be of at least three candela and shall be so placed that it will, at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, illuminate the numbers on the number plate, or, if provision is made on the number plate or on any attachment furnished or required by the Ministry for affixing the lamp, it shall be affixed in the position or space provided, and the lamp shall face to the rear and reflect on the number plate a white light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (19).
That's the requirement for the license plate lamp. I think the original poster is talking about the tail/brake lamp.
Bad idea. And illegal. Note that the "... of the prescribed type and meet the prescribed standards" applies to original-equipment lamps. In other words, if the vehicle came from the original manufacturer with original-equipment lamps that are "tinted" or "covered", but the lamps are certified to meet the applicable standards taking into account the tinting that is already on them from original equipment then that's legal, but after-the-fact modifications of this nature are not (and are really, really dumb). This is why certain VW GTI cars had tinted taillamps as original equipment - they were DOT-approved that way, with the tint already in place.
Attachment that affects lamps prohibited
(7) No person shall drive upon a highway a motor vehicle if either or both of the lamps that are required on the front of the vehicle by subsections (1), (2) and (3),
(a) are coated or covered with a coloured material; or
(b) have been modified by the attachment to the lamps or the motor vehicle of any device that reduces the effective area of the lenses or the intensity of the beam of the lamps. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).
Exception
(7.1) Clause (7) (a) does not apply if the lamps are of the prescribed type or meet the prescribed standards. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).
Edit: FAIL. The above section applies to lights on the FRONT of the vehicle. Hang on; there's something else about tail lamps.
Bad idea. And illegal. Note that the "... of the prescribed type and meet the prescribed standards" applies to original-equipment lamps. In other words, if the vehicle came from the original manufacturer with original-equipment lamps that are "tinted" or "covered", but the lamps are certified to meet the applicable standards taking into account the tinting that is already on them from original equipment then that's legal, but after-the-fact modifications of this nature are not (and are really, really dumb). This is why certain VW GTI cars had tinted taillamps as original equipment - they were DOT-approved that way, with the tint already in place.
Attachment that affects lamps prohibited
(7) No person shall drive upon a highway a motor vehicle if either or both of the lamps that are required on the front of the vehicle by subsections (1), (2) and (3),
(a) are coated or covered with a coloured material; or
(b) have been modified by the attachment to the lamps or the motor vehicle of any device that reduces the effective area of the lenses or the intensity of the beam of the lamps. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).
Exception
(7.1) Clause (7) (a) does not apply if the lamps are of the prescribed type or meet the prescribed standards. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 19 (1).
Edit: FAIL. The above section applies to lights on the FRONT of the vehicle. Hang on; there's something else about tail lamps.
Last edited:
You're right Brian. I misread it.
So did I 
Here is your new grey area:
Light requirement
(4) Any lamp required under subsection (1), (2) or (3) shall, when lighted, be clearly visible at a distance of at least 150 metres from the front or rear, as the case may be. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (4).
Herein lies the problem and it's the same one as with all sorts of other grey-area modifications. If the lighting on your vehicle carries DOT-approval markings and is working and unmodified, then (aside from being extremely unlikely to get a ticket in the first place for this sort of thing) your defense in court is "But, this is the original-equipment lighting for the vehicle, and it meets the Canadian federal motor vehicle standards because that's the way the manufacturer built it. It's not my fault that the officer is blind, can't see that the light is on, and can't see the DOT marking on the light."
If you modify the lighting in any way that reduces its intensity ... you can't say that.
Here is your new grey area:Light requirement
(4) Any lamp required under subsection (1), (2) or (3) shall, when lighted, be clearly visible at a distance of at least 150 metres from the front or rear, as the case may be. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (4).
Herein lies the problem and it's the same one as with all sorts of other grey-area modifications. If the lighting on your vehicle carries DOT-approval markings and is working and unmodified, then (aside from being extremely unlikely to get a ticket in the first place for this sort of thing) your defense in court is "But, this is the original-equipment lighting for the vehicle, and it meets the Canadian federal motor vehicle standards because that's the way the manufacturer built it. It's not my fault that the officer is blind, can't see that the light is on, and can't see the DOT marking on the light."
If you modify the lighting in any way that reduces its intensity ... you can't say that.
Even worse, is that if you were to be schmucked from behind, the possibility exists that the person behind could try to transfer fault for the collision to you, on the grounds that your brake lamp was not visible. Once again, you run into the same problem as above. If the lighting is DOT-marked, unmodified, and working properly, they have no case. If the lighting was modified ... big question mark.
Don't muck around with lighting ... it's not worth it.
Don't muck around with lighting ... it's not worth it.
|
|
|
|
|