so was on my way home tonight when i got the flashing red and blue behind me... pulled me over for illegal film/tint on taillights gave me a correction notice to get it removed within 14 days and have to have an officer sign this form. does any1 know of something i can use to get the tint off? trying to avoid buying new lights if possible

 

I used to have tinted tail lights but I realized the 06+ LEDS looks so much better on my car.

I also had paper in my car stating the law regarding tail light tint in Colorado.. there is a certain distance that you have to be able to see the red light from..

Im not sure about laws there...

To remove just use a hair dryer...

 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.200

 

so if i want to contest this how would i go about it. because you can see color 100 feet back. but since its not a ticket i cant take it to court its just a correction notice. only thing i can think of would be to have it taken to the dmv and have them look it over?

 

Unless you have a 1963 350Z, you'll be looking at 300'. But, I'm not sure what the process is for that. Call up the courthouse of the issuing jurisdiction and ask them.

 

steam

 

alright, thanks alot i just checked and i could see them from about 500 feet before they faded out

 

Sounds like you're within legal limits then. Best of luck!

 

The cop is just being a ********!! prove you can see them and go from there.

 

You know, I love how every single thread involving cops immediately devolves into the LEO doing something purely predicated on that fact that he or she is a ********, assh0le, *****, bit[h, douchebag, or whatever random name gets thrown. Even the OP, WHO GOT THE TICKET didn't do that.

Do YOU never make mistakes? There's a reason that the law is written the way it is, and a reason that there are individuals whose career is predicated on enforcing it. Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, he was doing his job and made a mistake?

When you go to bed tonight, take a minute to think about the fact that you can sleep easy knowing that you are protected by the men and women in law enforcement and the armed forces who are willing to compromise their own safety and are prepared to visit violence upon those who may wish you harm, and that you will be tended to by the individuals in public safety if something were to happen to you.

 

(1) Any vehicle may be equipped and when required under this chapter shall be equipped with a stop lamp or lamps on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red or amber light, or any shade of color between red and amber, visible from a distance of not less than one hundred feet and on any vehicle manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1964, three hundred feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and which shall be actuated upon application of a service brake, and which may but need not be incorporated with one or more other rear lamps.

So the way I understand it...if you can see the "light" emitted at a distance of 300 feet in normal sunlight, you are within the limits of the law.

Thanks for that one Scott!

 

I'm here to help.

Trust, but verify.

 

Also it doesnt say anything about the color of the lens...just the light displayed.

We've all seen the clear lenses..(( they obviously arent red ))...true tho that they have a little splash of red inside....but again...the law states the LIGHT displayed...not the color of the surrounding lens.

 

I think you are confounded by the facts here. The reason the OP was pulled over is that this so-called fix-a-ticket counts towards the cops quota which quota is not meant to serve and protect, it is meant to generate revenue. Likewise, many statutes are written to generate revenue. There are certain people that are really out there to protect you, and there are certain people out there to coerce you to pay more money. I personally don't see where and why the traffic laws were created that way. The inception is unclear.
If the OP's tail lights are really dark, yes, give him a ticket. I have mine tinted too, but it is the lightest tint out there.

 

I think that having the tinted tail lights, the officer believed they were too dark to be safe for other motorists and were as such in violation of 46.37.200, and he cited OP predicated on that. However, that's where being able to cite the actual statute comes in to play.

Which brings me to this question that I completely forgot to ask earlier:

Ace, what's the statute that you were cited as having violated?

As for revenue generating statutes, I haven't come across one. If you have specific examples, I'd be interested in hearing them.

 

the gray area surrounding tinted lights is the whole reason I won't get it done. : (

good luck!

 

rcw 46.37.525

 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.525

Unless you were on your motorcycle, you're all set.

 

How do you define safety? ambushing on a corner and catching old ladies driving with 5mph over the speed limit?
I think the law enforcement should concentrate on deterring people from drunk driving, people using drugs, and other street crimes. A friend of mine was cited for having blue LED license plate lights that came in his bone stock Lexus. Ahhhh, so i feel safe or harassed? I still think that focusing on CRIMES is more important than citing people for minor infractions. As for the tinted taillights, i am planning on installing high beams in lieu of my tails since people love to tail gait me. Which concerns me more than the fact how bright my tail lights are, because the person riding on my azz is probably on his phone tooooo(in this case, he must be cited )

 

5mph over the speed limit, regardless of whether or not it's an old lady or an 18 year old kid, is still speeding, and is still a crime, just as drunk driving, using drugs, tail gating, talking on the phone, and "other street crimes" are. Old ladies are not a protected class that can violate the law just because they're old ladies.

As for the blue LED plate frame, regardless of the fact that it's a "bone stock Lexus", is not OEM equipment (unless I missed a press release somewhere ), and I don't know the law regarding that.