Hey guys I was just wondering if anyone has every had a problem with tinted taillights and insurance I.e. being rear ended? I was wanting to get my tail lights tinted but I don't want to have someone reared me blame it on the lights and then I'm screwed!

 

It's definitely a risk you run.

 

This could happen but the police report would have to reflect that they were tinted and the officer would have to summons you at the scene, deeming them too dark. Otherwise I'd argue it if it happened.

We're u going to spray or put tint film?

 

It will also depend upon your state insurance laws regarding negligence. In most states, it could be definitely be an issue if it's not DOT approved. Say you're rear-ended and the other party claims that they didn't notice your lights right away because of the tint. The at-fault carrier may only offer to pay 80% of your damages ((for example), could even be less depending on lots of other factors).
It's something that I would've done in my younger days, but not something I'd do now that I know more about laws regarding comparative negligence, etc. It'd be easy to argue that you're partially negligent for deliberately reducing the amount of visible light transmitted from your brake lights.

Go w/ tail light bezels instead, IMO.

 

I've never understood the desire to darken tail lights. That's just asking for trouble. One of my best friends is STILL having his wages garnished three years after he was rear ended by a guy in a Beamer who happened to be a lawyer. He lost his car and his house as a result, just because his tail lights were darkened. Stupid.

 

don't do it, especially since your can't see them from the drivers seat.

 

Police report wouldn't have to reflect it. People have phones with cameras in them. I can't even begin to count how many times I'm interviewing someone after an accident, ask what happened after the accident and they say "I took pictures with my phone then called 911." Police departments carry cameras in their cars and will often take scene photos that are obtained by the insurance companies. Argue all you want, but it's a bad risk.

The tinted tails look good, but a smashed rear end looks horrible.

 

Read your state's statutes for motor vehicles. It will give you the minimum observable distance for lighted and unlighted tail lights including reflectors.

As long as your tinted tail-lights still meet those standards, insurance can't do anything about it.

 

In Virginia the state code reads that any vehicle must have 2 tail lights visable from 500ft in clear weather. Nothing states they cannot be tinted if still visible.

 

I'm telling you, a civil suit doesn't have to depend on laws or statutes. All it takes is someone rear ending you and claiming they couldn't tell you were braking. Stupid.

 

A civil suit certainly doesn't stop anything, but if you tint your tails and for instance get a statement from a police officer that the tail lights still conform to the state's article's and regulations, the plaintiff doesn't have much to stand on.

 

The taillights on 2010 and newer stands are friggin bright, so I don't thin tint would hurt visibility.

 

I've seen some pretty damned dark tinted tail lights.

Re: civil suit, what ruined my friend is the fact that the lawyer claimed that just because it meets requirements doesn't mean it's appropriately visible. It won the case for the guy. My friend had a signed statement saying his tinted tails were within regulation.

I shouldn't make such a big deal out of what, in all likelihood, won't happen. I just know a six-figure decision against you can really, really hurt. I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

Because tail lights being illuminated are the only signs of a car slowing down.




Not ******* on you, but the retards using that as an excuse, if your paying attention the car in front of you decelerating will clue you in as well as the brake lights. But, you gotta remember the low percentage of smart people in our country now.

I had tint on my 07 and had 0 problem with the law or accidents.

 

Yes, because everyone behind the wheel pays attention these days. Right? How about in bad weather? Fog? Night, when tinted tail lights will be of greater importance? Rush hour? Slamming on the brakes? I'm glad your impirical example is one of no incidents, but it isn't proof that others haven't or won't experience harassment or legal problems. It's neither proof nor guarantee that someone else will have your same experience.

 

They are illegal here in PA. I got busted by the State Po-Po a couple years ago. I just paid the fine and kept the tint on. I didn't drive the car very much and told the officer i wasn't removing it. He said if he saw me again with it on i'd have a bigger fine. I said o.k, its a chance i'll take.

 

civil suits and laws aside, if there is an accident and the insurance adjuster from the other company sees you have tinted taillights or otherwise finds out you have them, they will use that to assign blame between the two drivers. even though you got rear-ended they will look to assign a percentage of blame to you and that will affect your rates. I know tinted taillights look cool, but I don't want the additional chance I will be rear-ended with all the work I have put in to my car. If I blind someone with my taillights, all the better because I have to assume everyone else on the road is blind and retarded.

 

I have seen some cars that look ok with tinted tail lights. That being said most cars look pretty auto zonie with tinted tails.

I really do not understand how this is even a issue... I mean its putting peoples safety at risk. How would you feel if a car full of kids got hurt?? It just sounds pretty selfish to put cosmetics before saftey. People need to remember tail lights are part of the saftey system of your car.


its like taking the airbag out of the steer wheel and putting in a lcd...

looks like a smart idea....

 

Ok guys let's calm down haha

 

I worked for State Farm Auto Company several years back in their subrogation department as a processor.

While it's true that insurance companies by design do everything they can to pay only what they owe, this statement above is highly illegal.

Insurance companies can't just make up arbitrary rules and enforce them on the public. The situation you're referring to is what's known as comparative negligence.

The best example of when this happens is if speeding is involved. Car x made a left turn in front of car y, but car y was traveling 20 mph over the speed limit. That is comparative negligence and because the situation is rooted on the basis of law and auto statutes concerning proper operation of an automobile on public roads, can be treated as such.

If somebody modifies their vehicle by tinting the tail lights, but can still prove that those modifications meet all road statutes and limitations for daytime and night time visibility, the insurance company can't just make up rules regarding that. Some companies may try to do this, but a call to the department of insurance for your state will more than likely quickly see that overturned.

The problem here is that there is grey area in the proof. If you get rear-ended, more than likely the rear end of your vehicle is destroyed, including the tail-lights. That makes it a situation of he said, she said. At that point, the insurance companies will defer to any police reports that may have been filed. If a police report determines no wrong doing for one car, it's very hard to adequately argue that comparative negligence took place.

I'm not a personal fan of tinting tail lights, but as long as you abide by your state laws and document it, you shouldn't run in to any issues.

By documentation I would mean a written statement from an officer or entity familiar with the statute. I would then also get that motorized.