Subaru Ascent Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
Too dark for me, BUT it looks sick! I imagine with some high quality LED's with a better lumen output, it'd be easy to overcome the darkness of the tint
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
At night you can clearly see the taillights so it shouldn't be a problem.
How do they look in the daytime when the sun is shining on them? I commute eastbound in the afternoon and any car with tinted tail lights is much harder to see. You don't notice the brake lights in those conditions unless you consciously look for the light. No bueno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
I would do this if it was legal to Tint in PA. cops around here are a bit tough but seems to look good in pictures.
It's illegal here in CA too for a good reason. They make your lights works less effectively - no arguments can be made here.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
It would turn a slam dunk claim into "shared negligence" at best,
VA codes define visibility of lights from a certain distance. I don’t recall the specs but as long as you meet those, ie your state safety inspection sticker up to date, there’s no reason to share the blame. No matter how dark someone’s tail lights are, the vehicle in front of you gets bigger as you get closer ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
VA codes define visibility of lights from a certain distance. I don’t recall the specs but as long as you meet those, ie your state safety inspection sticker up to date, there’s no reason to share the blame. No matter how dark someone’s tail lights are, the vehicle in front of you gets bigger as you get closer ?
If so, it's unfortunate that somebody could partially obscure their tail lights and not share the blame for getting rear-ended. Tail lights have a function and it seems to make sense that if you diminish that function intentionally, you are being negligent.

I did a quick search for Virginia and found 19VAC30-70-150 (I have no idea if this is current). Grounds for rejection during a saftey inpection include, "9. The vehicle has wire, unapproved lens or plastic covers, any other materials that are not original equipment or any colored material placed on or in front of rear lamps, license plate lamps and rear lamp combinations.". I don't know how that translates to a rear-end collision claim.

Regardless of the laws and codes, dimmed lights are less effective at doing their job. Sure, you can technically see them, but you have to look out for them with more effort. I see it every day heading east in the afternoon. The sun is shining on the backs of cars and the ones with tinted lights are very hard to see. Normally, a brake light should catch your attention, even if it's caught with one's peripheral vision. Tinted lights are barely noticeable in sunny conditions. Tinting lights = reducing the effectiveness of a safety feature, whether it may be technically legal or not depending on your state.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
I did a quick search for Virginia and found 19VAC30-70-150 (I have no idea if this is current). Grounds for rejection during a saftey inpection include, "9. The vehicle has wire, unapproved lens or plastic covers, any other materials that are not original equipment or any colored material placed on or in front of rear lamps,


Thanks for digging that up. That’s what I get for not having the time to do so myself!

I think it may still look nice if the tail light housing was covered with the actual illumating portion remaining uncovered. Best of both worlds. Has anyone out there done so yet?
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top