MKT Personalization

[V8-X]

GT-IE: MKT looks good. Love the grille. The taillights, now I'm wondering if they are a dull or glossy/shiny black? I've seen night shades in both dull and shiny applications (can't remember how they were applied differently for the outcome) and think your ride would look better with a glossy/shiny black. The 1st pic post they just look a little dull, but still looks much improved over stock!

 

Thousands of drivers get tickets for tinted tail lights every year. If they don't come that way from the factory then they're illegal. Period. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

I have had both my headlights and taillights tinted/covers on my old '99 Ranger (42K miles at trade), my old '02 F150 (55K miles at trade) and now my current '06 F150 (currently 40K miles - see avatar). Sure it may be illegal, a chance I take, but you could/can see both heads/tails from over 1000ft away. But of the 137K miles I have driven through many states in those 3 trucks, I have yet to get 1 ticket because of them. Not 1 ticket. Heck, I've never been pulled over in any of those 3 trucks either. Knock on wood.

Edited October 11, 2011 by V8-X

[akirby]

I have had both my headlights and taillights tinted/covers on my old '99 Ranger (42K miles at trade), my old '02 F150 (55K miles at trade) and now my current '06 F150 (currently 40K miles - see avatar).

 

Why am I not surprised?

[GT_IE]

The taillights, now I'm wondering if they are a dull or glossy/shiny black?

 

They are glossy. After the nite shades was well dried, i applied about four coat of enamel clear coat. I let that cure for a week, then wet sanded it with 2000, then rubbing compound, the meuiars scratchx, then a pure polish. So now they are like any other painted part of the car and i can wax them when i wax the car.

[fordmantpw]

GT-IE: MKT looks good. Love the grille. The taillights, now I'm wondering if they are a dull or glossy/shiny black? I've seen night shades in both dull and shiny applications (can't remember how they were applied differently for the outcome) and think your ride would look better with a glossy/shiny black. The 1st pic post they just look a little dull, but still looks much improved over stock!

 

 

I have had both my headlights and taillights tinted/covers on my old '99 Ranger (42K miles at trade), my old '02 F150 (55K miles at trade) and now my current '06 F150 (currently 40K miles - see avatar). Sure it may be illegal, a chance I take, but you could/can see both heads/tails from over 1000ft away. But of the 137K miles I have driven through many states in those 3 trucks, I have yet to get 1 ticket because of them. Not 1 ticket. Heck, I've never been pulled over in any of those 3 trucks either. Knock on wood.

 

Didn't you say you were rear-ended in one of those vehicles with tinted tail lights? I may be mistaken, but I thought you mentioned once that you were...

[GT_IE]

Why am I not surprised?

 

Geez, would you just go away? We get it. You don't like tint. Even if it is legal, as it is in the stae of georgia.

 

The manufacturer provides specifications for the BULBS in terms of the lumens, candelas, and watts. The spec for the housing does not say it can not have another material applied to it.

 

Now, for headlights, the law say you can not apply any foreign material to it. Strangely, that is missing from the section on tail lights. It is replaced by language specifying how far the lights must be visible from.

 

You say thousands of people have received tickets? Name one from georgia.

[GT_IE]

Didn't you say you were rear-ended in one of those vehicles with tinted tail lights? I may be mistaken, but I thought you mentioned once that you were...

 

Oh my god. Are you kidding? Are you seriuosly suggesting that if he was tail ended that the tint was at all related?

 

Rear end collision of the number 1 type of collision, over 1/3 of all crashes. I'm pretty sure that approximately zero are because of tint. I'm gonna guess that distracted drivers and following too close are much more common.

[fordmantpw]

Oh my god. Are you kidding? Are you seriuosly suggesting that if he was tail ended that the tint was at all related?

 

Rear end collision of the number 1 type of collision, over 1/3 of all crashes. I'm pretty sure that approximately zero are because of tint. I'm gonna guess that distracted drivers and following too close are much more common.

 

You connected the dots, I didn't mention anything about the tint causing it. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. We will never know, as there is no way possible to say a specific accident would or would not have occurred had there been no tinting.

 

But, bottom line, if it limits visibility (which tinting does, to a certain extent), it can contribute, and common sense will tell you that. Tinting decreases the amount of light that comes through.

 

For me, it's not worth the risk, however slight it may be.

[GT_IE]

 

But, bottom line, if it limits visibility (which tinting does, to a certain extent), it can contribute, and common sense will tell you that. Tinting decreases the amount of light that comes through.

 

 

Screw common sense, how about we base the judgement on science. Have you ever seen a 2 f-stop, neutral density filter for a camera? It looks quote dark. Try looking through a camera with that filter on it and see if you can see the brake lights still? You can. Easily. The sensitivity and range of the human eye is pretty incredible. MUCH more sensitive than any film or digital camera.

 

The reaction to a brake light is binary. You see it or you don't. The distance that you have to travel away from a tinted brake light before you can no longer see it is so far that a collision is of zero concern.

 

The tint does not reduce the ability of a person who is within range of a collision to detect that the brake light is on. It just doesn't. During the daytime, the CONTRAST between the black parts of my tail light assembly that are unlit and the lit

portion is GREATER than it is when the unlit part is red, thus INCREASING visibilty because we really detect contrast.

Edited October 12, 2011 by GT_IE

[akirby]

ra·tion·al·ize /ˈraSHənlˌīz/

Verb:

 

Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true...

[GT_IE]

Akirby and Fordmantpw, do you wear a helmet when you are driving around in your car? Because if you don't, you are really putting your life at risk. Anyone who would argue that you are safer WITHOUT a helmet than WITH a helmet is just plain foolish.

 

I know that even though tinting tail lights is technically LEGAL it does allow some small percentage less light through but it is no more of a concern to me than driving around without a helmet. You can argue that driving without a helmet is different, but you will be rationalizing your irresponsible decision to drive without a helmet.

[fordmantpw]

Akirby and Fordmantpw, do you wear a helmet when you are driving around in your car? Because if you don't, you are really putting your life at risk. Anyone who would argue that you are safer WITHOUT a helmet than WITH a helmet is just plain foolish.

 

I know that even though tinting tail lights is technically LEGAL it does allow some small percentage less light through but it is no more of a concern to me than driving around without a helmet. You can argue that driving without a helmet is different, but you will be rationalizing your irresponsible decision to drive without a helmet.

 

Actually, I wear a helmet at all times, and even one that has a face shield! Especially when sitting at my computer, because you just never know when a key is going to pop off the keyboard and strike me in the head, rendering me unconscious and unable to call 911 for help.

 

I'm done with this topic...I've stated my opinions.

[akirby]

I'm done with this topic...I've stated my opinions.

 

Me, too. I think he's just trying to convince himself now.

[GT_IE]

Interestingly enough, it's illegal for me to drive the car in Georgia with the OEM headlights anyway...

 

(e) It shall be unlawful to operate a motor vehicle unless such motor vehicle is equipped with aiming pads on each headlight.

 

I guess my next mod should be to epoxy aiming pads onto the headlight.

[NickF1011]

Oh my god. Are you kidding? Are you seriuosly suggesting that if he was tail ended that the tint was at all related?

 

Not due to tint, but god awful aftermarket tail light assemblies, I've come closs to running into a few idiots over the years...

[V8-X]

Why am I not surprised?

Just as I'm not surprised you are against such items.

 

I'm curious. If tinted tail lamps are bad and illegal, then why did Ford offer a tinted/darkened tail lamp assembly on certain Ford F150 Harley Davidson models? Think it was 07-08 model years, can't remember the exact years, but I've looked into purchasing a pair of those OEM lights directly from Ford.

 

They are glossy. After the nite shades was well dried, i applied about four coat of enamel clear coat. I let that cure for a week, then wet sanded it with 2000, then rubbing compound, the meuiars scratchx, then a pure polish. So now they are like any other painted part of the car and i can wax them when i wax the car.

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

 

Didn't you say you were rear-ended in one of those vehicles with tinted tail lights? I may be mistaken, but I thought you mentioned once that you were...

I've been rear-ended twice, once in my 2006 F150 and once in the wife's 2004 Altima (which has stock OEM tails, no tint). Both situations were because of snowy/icy conditions. The F150 was hit at about 8am in Jan. 2008 on a residential street one block from my mothers where there is a 4 way stop at practically every corner. When I slowed to stop, my truck slid a tad bit due to ice. The car behind did the same and barely tapped the tow hitch of my truck. No damage to the F150, but only a slight scuff/scratch on the grille of the car. Was read ended in the wife's car last spring during a snow storm when a Mercedes driver hit ice/slush. It barely made a scuff on the cars rear bumper, which was easily buffed out when the weather cleared. So neither rear-ending was a direct result of the covers/tint.

 

I did broadside a 4-door S10 Blazer in the 2002 F150 back in August 2006, but it was middle of the day, about 12pm-1pm as I had just dropped my wife off back at work after taking her to lunch. Basically I was traveling between 35-40mph (west bound) and as I hit the crosswalk prior to the intersection, the S10 coming the other direction (east bound) decided to make a left (north bound) in front of me, attempting to beat me through the intersection. Of course that was no time to react, and in no way did tinted head/tail lights cause or impact the accident.

Edited October 12, 2011 by V8-X

[GT_IE]

 

I've been rear-ended twice, once in my 2006 F150 and once in the wife's 2004 Altima.

 

You must have had your helmet on because you aren't exhibiting the same signs of brain damage that we see among posters who drive without helmets.

[akirby]

I'm curious. If tinted tail lamps are bad and illegal, then why did Ford offer a tinted/darkened tail lamp assembly on certain Ford F150 Harley Davidson models?

 

Because they're not illegal if they're provided by the mfr and they've been certified to meet DOT standards. The mfrs are not allowed to use anything that doesn't meet DOT standards.

 

When you do the modification yourself, you're not going through the DOT certification so you can't be sure if they meet specs or not, therefore modifying them is illegal.

 

It's also not just about the visibility of the tail and brake lamps - it's also about the reflectors which allow you to see a vehicle without lights on from a certain distance. Even clear taillamps can be illegal.

[V8-X]

Because they're not illegal if they're provided by the mfr and they've been certified to meet DOT standards. The mfrs are not allowed to use anything that doesn't meet DOT standards.

 

When you do the modification yourself, you're not going through the DOT certification so you can't be sure if they meet specs or not, therefore modifying them is illegal.

 

It's also not just about the visibility of the tail and brake lamps - it's also about the reflectors which allow you to see a vehicle without lights on from a certain distance. Even clear taillamps can be illegal.

So tell me, exactly what is DOT standard? Funny thing is, I've found products for vehicles that are better and/or safer that are not DOT certified. Just because something has their stamp of approval doesn't automatically make it better/safer.

 

By the way you are talking, you must listen to the letter of the law. I take it you've never made a turn without ever using your blinker. You must have agreed with the NHTSA back in 2003-2008 when they dismissed all the complaints against Toyota SUA. You agree with every single law out there and never have disobeyed one of them. Correct?

 

Problems with the DOT, is each state has their own laws and requirements. While it's great to have their (DOT) approval, it's surely not the end all be all in legalities and what is safe or not. Example being lifted/raised trucks/SUV's. Each state has its own laws about maximum height or bumper height, headlight height, how far your wheels can stick out from the wheel wells, must have mud flaps, etc. Many people modify their vehicle every day, typically keeping within state law boundaries, not within DOT standards, as DOT standards are not held up by the state, only those state laws.

 

I admit, when I had Lund Covers on my lights, it was slightly harder to view the reflectors, but they were still plenty visible during night if lights (light pole, head lights, street lights) reflected off them. The tint film I have on my lights now, the reflectors are just as noticeable if not more so than the Ford F150 HD Lights.

 

I'm glad you want to stick to the DOT standard, good for you. Problem is, the DOT isn't the end all be all in what is good/bad, safe/unsafe, etc. Sure they do play a part in making an overall vehicle safe, I do admit that. But like most agencies, they take certain aspects to far and why the state laws vary from DOT regs.

Edited October 12, 2011 by V8-X

[GT_IE]

 

When you do the modification yourself, you're not going through the DOT certification so you can't be sure if they meet specs or not, therefore modifying them is illegal.

 

 

First, the law in georgia says you must meet manufacturer specs, NOT DOT specs.

 

Second, when the law intends for you to not modify them, it explicitly says as much as it does in the headlight law which explicitly states "shall not be covered by any type of material"

 

Third, saying you can't do this because you can't be sure if they meet specs implies a presumption of guilt, i.e. You are out of spec until you prove you are in. Our justice system affords you a presumption of innocence, i.e. You are in spec until the state proves that you are NOT. There is case law SPECIFICALLY ON THIS POINT AND ON THIS STATUTE. An appeals court threw out the evidence gathered at a stop when the probable cause for the stop was cited as being section e of this statute, namely "does not meet specs". He ruled that the officer had no way of knowing the manufacturer's specs and as such could not stop the person for failing to meet them.

 

You are simply wrong about this. You cite as your only evidence your own interpretation of a statute. You are misinterpreting it. A judge has ruled as much. Please stop telling people it is illegal, it is not.

[GT_IE]

Also, a state can not cite you for failing to meet a federal law. States that require you to meet the DOT standard must therefore pass a state law explicitly stating that you must conform to the DOT standard, which by the way simply refers to an SAE standard. The georgia law does NOT say that you must meet the DOT standard.

Edited October 12, 2011 by GT_IE

[GT_IE]

STATE v. KEDDINGTON

The STATE v. KEDDINGTON.

 

No. A04A0112.

 

-- December 22, 2003

 

 

The State Court of Gwinnett County granted Katie Ann Keddington's motion to suppress [...] because the arresting officer, W.J. Bates, did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Keddington's vehicle.   The State appeals, and we affirm.

 

In September 2002, Officer Bates pulled over Keddington's 1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse because the vehicle had “Euro” style taillights, i.e., white lenses with red circles in the middle.   [...].   Thus, according to Bates, Keddington was in violation of OCGA § 40-8-23(e), which requires that “All lenses on taillights shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications.”

 

Upon cross-examination, the evidence shows that Officer Bates could not produce any documentation in support of his research;  could not state the dimension of the correct taillight lenses ostensibly used by Mitsubishi;  and could not state what company manufactured taillights for Mitsubishi automobiles.   [...],

 

the trial court granted Keddington's motion to suppress.   Held:

 

 [...]  With absolutely no factual support for the officer's research claims-either by way of research content, operation, or reference, we cannot find clear error in the trial court's credibility

[...]

 

In this case, the stop [...] based upon manufacturers' taillight specifications [...] cannot be deemed, under all the circumstances, reasonable.   The chance that Keddington's older model Mitsubishi might also fall within the taillight specifications of the later models Bates purportedly researched is just that, a chance;  especially in light of Officer Bates' testimony that manufacturers' specifications may change every three years.   [...] the grant of Keddington's motion to suppress must be affirmed.

 

Judgment affirmed.

[akirby]

If you're so sure I'm wrong then why do you care what I think? I think you're just trying to convince yourself that it's a good idea.

 

At this point I really don't care.

[GT_IE]

If you're so sure I'm wrong then why do you care what I think?

 

I don't care what you think. I do care about exposing you as pompous, arrogant and ignorant ass that you are. Judging from the PMs i have received, I'm not the only person sick of you berating, belittling, shouting down, and insulting other forum members. I care about giving you a stage to show your ass and flaunt your stupidity. Your best arguments seem to be "oh yeah?" and "because i said so". People deserve to know what they are getting when the see advice from you, because you dress your BS up as truth and somehow think that your 4 figure post count makes up for your 2 figure IQ. I have presented a mountain of evidence, not just to refute you but to provide others with actual facts on which to base their own decisions. You name call and attack my motives.

 

I don't need to convince myself of anything. I KNOW it is a good idea, because I like it and its my car. Given that it is also perfectly legal, that's all that matters.

 

Now, how about you do the whole forum a favor and if you don't have something nice to say in other people's threads, then just STFU.

[NickF1011]

Geez folks, can we put this baby to bed already? You both disagree. That obviously is not going to change. Let's just move on.

[GT_IE]

Geez folks, can we put this baby to bed already? You both disagree. That obviously is not going to change. Let's just move on.

 

Yeah, you know, I had moved on just as you asked before. But then, the very first person who came into the thread after that point immediately takes a shot from AKirby (see post #27). Why he can't stay out of this thread and leave the conversation to people who actually want to discuss my customizations I can't understand. If he wants to continue trolling my thread and insulting people who enjoy personalizing their vehicles to their own tastes, then maybe you should just ban him from the forum.

 

I'd like this thread to go on, discussing customizations of my, and other's, MKT. Why he can't respect that is beyond me.

 

The facts are indisputable, but he chooses to maintain a willful blindness to fact and reason and interject in the thread with nothing truthful nor positive. Take it up with him.