Maryland Judge Declares Pontiac G8 GT's Factory Taillights Illegal; Tells Car Owner To Get A Different Car [Updated: Or Maybe Not...]

from the judge-this dept

Update: As some folks are pointing out in the comments, people digging into this have discovered that the guy did, in fact, modify his taillights to make them look like stock. Some are suggesting it still didn't violate local laws, but it's not as clear cut any more...

Aaron Martin-Colby alerts us to the bizarre story of how the owner of a standard, unmodified Pontiac G8 GT was first pulled over for having illegal taillights, and then told by the judge that he should just get a new car, because the taillights, despite being approved by the Department of Transportation, are illegal:
Went to court for my clear tail lights on my car and was found guilty!

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. I took the G8 sales brochure in along with pics of my car and other G8 GT's and the VIN trace by 3 different dealers saying my lights were factory none of it mattered 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. Also where the back-up and turn signals are should be the reflectors according to the cop so the V6 cars lights aren't legal either.

Judge stupid went on to tell me that maybe I should consider trading in or selling the car since its not legal in MD and that I'm going to continue to get the $60 tickets till I get rid of the car.
Nice to know that the officer and the judge seem to know better than everyone else, including the Department of Transportation...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:27am

    More details...

    There are a lot of comments on Jalopnik from people who read the forum source materials (I haven't) and apparently this guy disassembled his tail lights and painted parts of them black. They are no longer stock, despite his claims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Yet another case of...

    Little tin gods.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    ofb2632 (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:33am

    Sue Pontiac!! Then agree to settle if/when they agree to go after the judge

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Adam (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:34am

    Modified lights

    Here are a couple links from the Jalopnik comments thread, apparently from the G8Boards where this was originally posted:

    http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/12/2010/07/6a1f814de862a3a8d091f609140adae2 /340x.jpg

    http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3235/4061/33087030160_medium.jpg

    It appears that the stock lenses were modified in at least a couple of ways and really couldn't be considered "stock" any more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Matt R, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:40am

    MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS

    Mike, do just a little bit of research and digging thru the source link comments and you'll see his lights are so far from stock it's not even funny. He deserved the ticket.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Brad F, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:55am

    "Nice to know that the officer and the judge seem to know better than everyone else, including the Department of Transportation..."

    Nice to know that the author of an article on techdirt isn't required to do any research before publishing. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 7:56am

    Ha!

    This is a case where the judge is clearly on an ego-trip. She has forgotten her place in the legal system! It is certainly NOT up to her to decide the legality of the tail lights once DOT has approved them. Time to clear the bench of this loose cannon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Robb Topolski (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:00am

    Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS

    Mr. "Jackalope" deleted his original thread. It would be easier to research if the guy would make it easier. It would also be easier to research if we had more than one side to this story, but Jackalope is providing both sides.

    In his new thread, the modifications that he mentions are all changes from chrome to black. From that, one cannot conclude that he deserved the ticket. In fact, by covering the chrome and preventing a white reflection from being shown from the rear, it might be argued that his modification was more in spirit of the law than the original design.

    The right move is to appeal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:06am

    Re: Ha!

    This is where you are WRONG. The DOT is a Federal agency, and the state is entitled to further restrict the laws.

    The DOT approval stamp on the Lense is for FENDERAL approval, not STATE approval...

    But like most things on Techdirt, little mikee never gets the entire story, only the parts that furthers his agenda.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Black Patriot (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:07am

    That's what they guy gets for having a Commodore...

    (for those not from Australia the Pontiac G8 is actually a VE Commodore that's made in Australia, and sold under the Pontiac name)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Re: Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS

    Robb, why is Techdirt even publishing or giving any attention to this story at all if "Jackalope is providing both sides" of the story?

    The fact that he deleted his original thread makes the whole thing suspect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    ...

    So wouldn't there be a reason to get this approved and Iunno, clarified so that the federal law and the state law coincide?

    If the guy can spend the money to get the parts, and if it's not a HUGE deal, I don't see the risk.

    I'd like to see what happens to this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    Based upon a comment by the car owner after folks began talking about his tailights having been modified, he stated that he has a separate set used for a car show, but that these are not the ones he ordinarily uses nor were they the ones on his car when he was ticketed. Apparently he was ticketed because his factory tailights were considered by the officer to be illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Sean T Henry (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    If the tail lights are modified by tinting them then the guy is in the wrong. I agree that it looks better tinted but you need to know the state laws when doing that. The issue with tinting is it does make it harder to see the break lights unless brighter lights are used. If he recleared part of the lights and placed a reflector in the bottom portion it might be fine he should have done some photo shops and asked what was allowed to have it on record.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    mjb5406 (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re: Ha!

    So, you are saying, in essence, that a car manufacturer should be able to make 50 different versions of every part of every car to appease the laws of 50 different states? So if your state requires yellow stoplights and green backup lights that's OK?

    Give me a break.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Steven (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    DOT doesn't matter

    Even if this guy was using unmodified taillights (which there seems to be some debate) that doesn't mean they are legal in MD.

    Yes it sucks, and yes it's a pain in the ass, but if the taillights do not comply with MD law then he deserved the ticket. Of course I don't see that anybody has looked up the applicable MD law, so the rest is just speculation.

    It would probably be far more practical to color the taillights red than to buy a new car. I would think he would also have some recourse against the dealer, assuming he bought it in MD. If he bought it out of state and brought it in, it's all on him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    matt, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    Wahhhhh!!!

    This guy needs to stop crying. He'll really be crying when someone in the rain can't see his brake lights and rear-ends him going 70 miles an hour on the highway. "But they looked cooler!" Moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Christopher Weigel (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Ha!

    Is there ever a day when you *aren't* a condescending asshole?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:39am

    Re: DOT doesn't matter

    Ok, details, details...

    I will, like you, assume that these are unmodified taillights. DOT approval is at BOTH the federal and state level. For example, California has stricter smog laws than most of the remainder of the country.

    The way this particular part of our legal system works is the entity defined by law (the DOT) gives approval for what is and what is not legal. The police enforce the law - they do not make it. The judge deferring to the police officer "if the officer says my lights aren't legal then they're not legal" is crazy. The police are not there to create or interpret the law - they are an enforcement agency.

    In this case, the role of the judge should have been to look at the DOT stamp, verify that the taillights were DOT approved and unmodified, and tell the police officer that these were approved by the proper agency and he is wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Ha!

    If that car is approved for sale in the state, which I am sure it is, then you are the one who is wrong. If the state has specific laws further restricting the DOT requirements, then it is against the law to sell these cars in MD in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:42am

    As a licensed vehicle inspector in another state we deal with taillight and headlight issues all the time. Bottom line here is, if it is DOT approved and clearly marked as such it is ok.


    What I find interesting in this discussion is the feeling I get from reading the posts that people think it is OK for a state to have it's own laws about taillights even if they conflict with federal standards. ┬┐Are these the same people that feel that Arizona cannot have it's own immigration laws?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Revelati, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:45am

    This is why everyone just needs to get some ohio plates, forget tail lights, you don't even need a windshield, and thanks to interstate commerce laws the supreme court says you can drive that beat up ol jalopy across the country without a care in the world.

    So I guess the moral of the story is, if you dont want to fund police pensions by getting tickets for ridiculous "infractions" like tail lights or "overly tinted windows" then you should move to a state that doesn't have a steel rod rammed up its collective @$$.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:45am

    http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3235/4061/33087030160_medium.jpg

    They are not stock. Since ya'lls reading comprehension is teh fail, maybe pictures?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Mastro (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:46am

    Yeah, Original source of article, commentators are saying it's not stock, but modified to look like stock.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    KevinJ (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:49am

    Re: DOT doesn't matter

    Would it help to know which law he was cited for? According to the updated thread that Jackalope has up it is:

    22-209. (b) REAR LAMPS - Rear clearance lamps, identification lamps, and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of the vehicle shall display or reflect a red color. (An. Code 1957,art 66 1/2 ss12-209; 1977 ch.14 ss 2.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    ObamaGirl, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:51am

    Can a moron(Mike) in a hurry do research?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:00am

    Actually my friends and I had a similiar conversation the other day. In Massachusetts, you cannot have above a certain level of tinting, unless it comes that way from the factory. The law in MA actually states this explicitly. So if you have factory tinted windows, you're fine. But if you tint them yourself, you have to follow the MA law.

    This guy pretty much fell into the same boat. His taillights are legal as long as he doesn't modify them. Once he modifies them, he has to follow what the state says, even if his modification do not change the overall brightness or reflectivity of the lights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    MDInspector, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:07am

    Marylands state inspection code is strict. Very strict. More examples:

    Fenders must extend half way down the height of the tire, front and back. So anything where the fenders/mudflaps/rockers end higher than the center of the hub fails. Many stock off the lot trucks technically fail.

    Any exhaust system that makes the car louder than OEM - fail. So its illegal for Pepboys to sell one of those coffee cans if its going on something with a license plate.

    I know it was drafted, not sure if it was approved, but there was one in motion that you must replace tires with those equal or better in speed rating than the factory rubber. Buy a corvette with 200 mph Z rated shoes? Congrats, youre paying 300+ per tire even if you never go over 65.

    But hey, a hardwood 4x4 still passes for a bumper. No joke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:08am

    Re: Re: DOT doesn't matter

    Ok, he had modified tail lights, but his point (and I would agree) is that the modification did not impact what he was ticketed for. He has been told by the DOT in Maryland that the lights are legal. In addition, he is stating:

    "I told the judge the car now has 100% FACTORY lights in it and she said she didn't care, that the officer says the clear lens's are illegal so they are illegal and I'll continue to get stopped, be ticketed and she'll continue to fine me for running the stock lights the car came with"

    Now, if that is true, it should be very disconcerting for anyone with a Pontiac G8 driving through the state (even if you do not live there).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    TW Burger (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:10am

    Re: Modified or Not?

    I agree.

    Well, were the taillights modified? If so, they can be deemed illegal. However, I have heard of the same thing happening to others with DOT approved factory assemblies. My brother's 1972 GTO was deemed to have fog lights that were too low and the police officer ticketed him. They were absolutely stock. It would seem that sometimes the police just make stuff up to justify the stop.

    The judge would have no idea what is legal or illegal. They usually just go with whatever the officer says in traffic court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:12am

    Sounds like you need to move.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:15am

    Re: More details...

    There are a lot of comments on Jalopnik from people who read the forum source materials (I haven't) and apparently this guy disassembled his tail lights and painted parts of them black. They are no longer stock, despite his claims.

    Updated the post. Thanks for passing on the details.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:15am

    Re: Modified lights

    It appears that the stock lenses were modified in at least a couple of ways and really couldn't be considered "stock" any more.

    Thanks! I updated the post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:16am

    Re:

    Nice to know that the author of an article on techdirt isn't required to do any research before publishing. :)


    Well, us and a few others, but that's why we have comments. :) I've updated the post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS

    In his new thread, the modifications that he mentions are all changes from chrome to black. From that, one cannot conclude that he deserved the ticket. In fact, by covering the chrome and preventing a white reflection from being shown from the rear, it might be argued that his modification was more in spirit of the law than the original design.

    Interesting point. New update reflects that point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:18am

    Re:

    Based upon a comment by the car owner after folks began talking about his tailights having been modified, he stated that he has a separate set used for a car show, but that these are not the ones he ordinarily uses nor were they the ones on his car when he was ticketed. Apparently he was ticketed because his factory tailights were considered by the officer to be illegal.

    Of course, that makes the story more interesting, but it's one guy's word vs. his current taillights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    Re:

    They are not stock. Since ya'lls reading comprehension is teh fail, maybe pictures?

    No reading comprehension fail. Lots of sites got the original story wrong, and we've now updated based on this. This is what the comments are for... so thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Rob, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Modified or Not?

    "The judge would have no idea what is legal or illegal. They usually just go with whatever the officer says in traffic court."

    If I were to choose exactly one qualification for the position of "judge", it would be the knowledge of -- or ability to look up -- pertinent laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 10:07am

    Re:

    Don't know what part of Ohio you're from, but missing/broken tail lights OR windshield will get you in trouble, partner. Legally speaking, you can't even drive a car that has a crack in the windshield.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re:

    Good lord, you're a patient and polite fellow in the face of rudeness and idiocy. That's the proprietor's job, I guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 11:12am

    i was aimed at the commenters above me. You are not "ya'll" no matter how many different posters TAM believes you are.....so thanks :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Chris (profile), Jul 20th, 2010 @ 11:23am

    State Law Vs. Federal

    Some people seem to be surprises that Federal and state laws do not coincide in all cases.

    I watched a report a while ago from a local news station that Hummer's are in essence illegal in florida due to there width. They exceed the state law requirements by an inch and a half or so. So owners could be ticketed. Judges could recommend to buy a new one; and cops can write tickets. Its conflicts like these that happen when you have federal, state, city, county and even legally enforceable HOA's laws that each try's to cover every aspect of your life. there tends to be overlaps and conflicts in them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Ha!

    So, you are saying, in essence, that a car manufacturer should be able to make 50 different versions of every part of every car to appease the laws of 50 different states?

    Yeah, that would be like if, say, California had special emissions requirements or something. Oh, wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Freedom, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 3:05pm

    Regulations...

    This is a perfect reason why we have to be careful with over regulation. While some is good, at some point you cross a line and lose common sense and end up creating this sort of non-sense.

    Considering what police cost (salary, insurance, pension, etc.), one has to ask if Maryland doesn't have way too many if they have enough time to pull over and ticket for this. Add in court costs, infrastructure, and so on and it is "nice" to see Maryland is spending the private sector's money "so well".


    Freedom

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Regulations...

    Yeah, people should be able to put whatever kind of lights they want on their cars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS

    In his new thread, the modifications that he mentions are all changes from chrome to black.

    You mean that shiny, chrome part called the "reflector"? What ever could be wrong with blacking *that* out?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    darryl, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 4:46pm

    It is nice to know, officer and judge know better :)

    Nice to know that the officer and the judge seem to know better than everyone else, including the Department of Transportation...

    Yes, it is !!!

    Its nice to know the authorities, just dont assume you are not breaking the law because the rules say you are not.

    So yes, it is nice to know the officer and judge know better than everyone else. After all its their job.

    This also goes to show that even if you "own" something, you do not have the right to do with it what you like.

    That applies to cars or copyright, you might own the physical car, or song, but you dont own the copyright or the design of the car. That is not yours, and not yours to tamper with.

    Yeah, people should be able to put whatever kind of lights they want on their cars.

    Um, no they should not, these are rules in place for a reason, lights that are too big can distract someone behind you, or too small and you cannot see them in bad conditions.

    If you follow your logic, you should be able to put any engine, brakes, tyres on your car.

    But you know that is stupid, and you cannot do it for simple reasons, you will damage yourself, or someone else.

    Use a bit of common sense.

    Also, if it was the case that the law rejected a stock standard car, the owner of that car would have recourse to the car manufacturer and would be able to get his money back at least.

    Plus, the car company would not be allowed to sell an unroadworthy car at all. So with 2 second thinking, and 3 seconds of research and fact checking would have saved you some embarrasment.

    Didnt you think this story was a bit "sus" from the start ?

    Are your readers better at fact checking than yourself ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    RadialSkid, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Regulations...

    As long as it's red and it glows, then yes, the authorities should butt out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    RadialSkid, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 5:10pm

    Re: It is nice to know, officer and judge know better :)

    "That applies to cars or copyright, you might own the physical car, or song, but you dont own the copyright or the design of the car. That is not yours, and not yours to tamper with."

    Yes it is. Provided your car still meets the vehicle code, you can paint it pink with purple polka dots if you want, and it's nobody's damn business.

    "If you follow your logic, you should be able to put any engine, brakes, tyres on your car."

    Same thing. If your car is smog exempt (of you live in a state without emissions testing), then you CAN put any kind of engine you want in your car. Same with brakes and "tyres." If it passes a safety inspection, you're in the clear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    darryl, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 6:03pm

    vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.

    Yes it is. Provided your car still meets the vehicle code, you can paint it pink with purple polka dots if you want, and it's nobody's damn business.

    So as long as you comply with the existing laws and statutes, you can do what you like.

    Sounds just like everything we humans do !!.

    But if you dont comply with the existing laws and rules, then you are breaking the law, and officers and judges will rightfully charge you..

    You cant "do what you like" you cannot put bike wheels or plastic brake pads on your car, as you said, you have to comply with the laws and rules.

    So you cant paint your car any color you like, you could not for example paint it in the same colors as the police or ambulance, or a taxi.

    You cannot put any engine, or brakes on because you do not comply with the law.

    You cannot download and upload copyrighted files, because the law says you cannot.

    The law says you cannot do alot of things with your "own" property. They even have the right to take away from you that property if you cannot be trusted with it.

    So this is a non-case, yes he modified his own property, but he did so in a way that did not meet the laws set out, so he was chanrged for it.

    Exactly what should happen..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    RadialSkid, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 6:10pm

    Re: vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.

    "But if you dont comply with the existing laws and rules, then you are breaking the law, and officers and judges will rightfully charge you."

    The entire gist of the story is that his taillights DID comply with Maryland law.

    "So you cant paint your car any color you like, you could not for example paint it in the same colors as the police or ambulance, or a taxi."

    Yes, actually you can. You can't utilize the markings, signs, and livery of what departments currently utilize, but you can make a car a reasonable facsimile. How else do you think collectors can own restored vintage police cars, ambulances, etc.?

    "You cannot put any engine, or brakes on because you do not comply with the law."

    Once again, it depends on the law. If your car is smog exempt, you can indeed put any engine you want in it, provided it doesn't run on nuclear power or human blood or something. Ask the owner of the infamous truck diesel-powered Corvette about that.

    Brakes: If it passes safety inspection, you can modify that as well. Google "aftermarket brake kits" and see what you come up with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Re: vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.

    The entire gist of the story is that his taillights DID comply with Maryland law.

    Um, no. The guy started out claiming that they were "stock", but it then came out that they apparently were not. He had modified them, and once you do that they're no longer DOT approved and street legal. Now he claims that his modifications shouldn't matter, but that's not for him to decide. Of course, I suppose he could have gone through the expense and trouble of having his modified design tested and approved (if it passed), but he didn't. (And I bet it would be really expensive)

    So, yes, you can modify your taillights just about how ever you want. Just don't take it out on the public roads after you do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    RadialSkid, Jul 20th, 2010 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.

    Um, yes. His taillights are still red and the red reflector is still in it's normal position (located in the bumper, BENEATH the taillight assembly).

    He only painted some chrome bits black and painted a small amount of the upper lens body color. It still functions as stock, and it was still approved during inspection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 21st, 2010 @ 1:11am

    Re: It is nice to know, officer and judge know better :)

    Are your readers better at fact checking than yourself ?


    Um. Yes. That's the whole idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    darryl, Jul 21st, 2010 @ 5:53pm

    If its not the truth, dont post. if you want a 'good' reputation, and not one for false statements.

    Are your readers better at fact checking than yourself ?


    Um. Yes. That's the whole idea.


    then maybe you should quit doing "Detailed analysis" then, if that is the case, and what is your purpose here then anyway ?

    If it is not to provide checked facts and real information, what is it you do again ?

    Do we have to read what you say, with the assumption that it is wrong ? and it needs to be checked for honesty or accuracy ?

    You should start with the truth, and take it from that point, there should be no reason to check your work, you should just be honest in the first place, and responsible enough to check facts before posting.

    If no one checked what you said was a lie, then at some point in the future you would refer back to it as fact. and perpetuate the lie.

    Wrong information is far more damaging than no information at all. that means you are better off saying nothing, than not saying the truth, or checking your stories as truthfull.

    especially if you intend to refer to them in the future, which you regularly do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    ACK, Jul 22nd, 2010 @ 10:15am

    Re: If its not the truth, dont post. if you want a 'good' reputation, and not one for false statements.

    "Do we have to read what you say,"

    NO YOU DON'T SO TAKE A LONG WALK OFF OF A SHORT PIER

    and take your hissie fits with you... little girl

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Mike Mulcahy, Nov 9th, 2010 @ 9:19pm

    Re: More details...

    but what the judge argues is that the outer lens is not displaying red, and unless he painted them red his self there is no way comply with her assessment.( i also own a g8)As for him tinting them that has no relevance toward them displaying red, to which there is a red lens in the housing just not the outer part she refers to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Mike Mulcahy, Nov 9th, 2010 @ 9:28pm

    Re:

    could not agree more how insightful

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Mike Mulcahy, Nov 9th, 2010 @ 9:38pm

    Re:

    from what i have found on the issue the argument isnt whether they are stock it is whether the red is displayed on the rear of the vehicle, and this car has clear outer lenses, altough tinted or not. also it seems no one considers the 3rd break light as something to indicate he is stopping. i sure hope that somone traveling 70 would interpert that as a a sign of him using his brake pedal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Mike Mulcahy, Nov 9th, 2010 @ 9:42pm

    Re: Re: DOT doesn't matter

    so did anyone shine a light at them to see if they reflect red because they dont have to dispay and reflect just one of the two

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Ticketed G8 owner, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 3:21am

    My tail lights

    I've said it before and I'll tell those from here as well, THE TAIL LIGHTS ON MY CAR AT THE TIME WERE IN FACT 100% STOCK! I have several sets that I have modded for car outings and group meets but when I'm just driving around I stick the stockers back in.

    Regardless of this FACT the "parts I painted black" inside the tail lights were the chrome ring that surrounds the red tail light cicle, nothing else was painted and no where does anythning say that ring must be chrome. You may now step down from your high horse as you have no idea WTF your talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This