Flagstang

I seen a subaru the other day that was all rallied out and had bedliner for paint.

Kevin509

I got pulled over for the taillights on my truck once (see picture, the tails were the same shade as the marker lights and turn signals) and while the officer didn't give me a ticket, he did specifically say that if I was rear ended at night, I could be held liable for the accident.



IMO, tinting taillights is sorta the same as running no front plate in a state that requires one or having dark window tint. If you want to do it, do it, and probably 95% of police cars you run across aren't going to stop you for it. I had the lights tinted on that truck for over a year before I was stopped for it. But you have to accept that there is always the possibility of getting a ticket for it.

2012GTCS

What exactly do you do for a living? And how is my post erroneous?! I said a police report would have to show it and that would usually go with a summons. You simply mentioned about cell phones so what makes police reports erroneous??

Still, the fact of having "tinted" lights doesn't make the lights illegal everywhere. If they can be seen from the designated distance that the statute of law states, they aren't illegal. As stated Joe Schmo can say what he wants but if it's not in violation, it's not in violation, period. Of course any lawyer ca fight for either side and they both have arguments. Just because driver "says" he didn't see the red light doesn't mean It was green or broken....

11SHELBYGT500

Hey, no need to get insulting.

05GT-O.C.D.

I've been an insurance adjuster for over a decade, and currently am in charge of training new auto liability reps. I'm also an arbitrator (handles disagreements between insurance companies) and I sit in on mediations (typically ordered by courts prior to trials).

The original question was "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 you responded by saying "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." This is just plain false. The police report doesn't have to reflect it for an insurance investigation. The police report is simply a tool, a single piece of many pieces of evidence in any investigation. They're often incomplete, and many times will even have false information on them. I just won a case where based on re-interviewing and clarifying witness statements, the police were determined to have misinterpreted the witnesses and everything was completely overturned. Heck, in parking lots they typically won't give anyone a citation due to being private property. I can't begin to count the number of times a police report will list no injuries, but 3 days later you get a call from a chiropractor seeking policy information and letter of representation from an attorney for an injury claim.

Sorry I'm rambling... so back to this issue w/ tinted tails though - after a minor accident the cars will typically get just an adjuster inspection. It's not hard to see if the tails are tinted, even if the back end does have damage. It's not like the lenses simply disappear. The insurance companies can negotiate liability percentages and you often won't even be a part of that conversation. In a severe accident w/ injury, the car can be held for evidence or expert examination. Insurance companies spend thousands of dollars on IME's (Independent Medical Examinations) to prove or disprove injuries, there would no problem with spending $60 for a set of tinted taillight covers to prove the amount of light transmittance. Advising that you're going to just argue that it didn't happen is not just erroneous, it's bad advice. But hey, this is just the internet.

2012GTCS

Arguing that it simply didn't happen was not my point. I meant that one could have a say that this is not what cause the accident, etc. The term "argue" was meant in a lawyer type argument, just as you said you "won" a case, probably by argument. (presenting your case). The information is not plain wrong, since either side can have a fight.

This is going way in detail for no reason. To not see a car and simply slam into it causing serious physical Injury and death, there is going to be a larger factor then just a 8x6 piece of tiny film. Plus in the End that will be left up to the PD Accident inv squad.

05GT-O.C.D.

And again, you're incorrect. Police departments do not have the time, manpower, nor the concern to dedicate accident reconstructionists to typical motor vehicle accidents. In a fatality, yes. But not in 95% of rear end accidents, and it is more and more common for people to claim major injuries for minor accidents. As far as "arguing..." Yes, you could argue it, but when discussing liability percentages, you normally wouldn't even get the chance. This would simply be another issue that would be discussed by your companies liability adjuster. People make stupid arguments all the time, from equipment issues, to cell phone issues, to weather issues. I handle liability disputes multiple times each day. Trust me.

2012GTCS

The point of everything was that there are just as many points, if not more, that state tints didn't cause the accident then if they did. It simply comes down to the private sector - a lawyer (civil) or insurance company argument. And yes, it basically ends up being a legal argument.

brewsky54

Sweet!! Thanks for tips guys!! Next time I see tinted taillights on a car, I'm just going to smash into them! Then I can blame it on them and get paid!


If most of the arguments being made here are true, I would win. Right?

05GT-O.C.D.

Let me put this another way. It comes down to negligence and levels of negligence. When you're operating a motor vehicle on public roadways, you have a duty to ensure that your vehicle conforms to all laws, including DOT regulations.
When you're following someone, you also have a duty to maintain assured clear distance from the car you're following.
Anyone breaching their duty can be held liable if it is determined that their breach contributed to or caused damages to the other.
If you think I'm wrong and you're looking for a payday, then simply remove your brakelight bulbs, go out driving at night and in bad weather, jam on your brakes when someone's behind you, and then tell the other person's insurance company that you removed your brake light bulbs because it looked cool.
After you do that, come on back here and update the thread with your findings.

2012GTCS

Not incorrect, i stated in serious physical injury or death accidents (since someone mentioned serious inj and death) the PD MUST do an accident investigation. I am in probably the busiest metropolitan area, and we still find time for AI). I have done many AI's as well. And while I can really only speak for my area and the surrounding region, I will say NO trained accident investigator will deem tinted taillights as the primary contributing factor of an accident.

And also in my time I have been beat during equipment violations as well, many being tints. There's too many doubting factors to make the case presentable. Of course, civil court is a totally different animal. You can say this guy made a funny face at me and I'm scarred for life, I want 2 million.

05GT-O.C.D.

1) We're not talking about primary, we're talking about contribution. Nobody has said otherwise.
2) A significant percentage, I'll gander a guess at 40% of injury claims to insurance companies list NO injury on the police report.
3) All's we're talking about is civil. Insurance companies typically don't pursue anything else unless it's fraud.

35thAnvGT

Ive tinted all of my cars tail lights that I've had.. I say as long as you don't tint them pitch black dark you should be fine.. Also be aware if your car is a DD your always on the street more which raises the chance of you getting pulled over depending if the cop is a douche or not.. I you were to get into an accident I would think the insurance company would try to blame it on you for modifying your cars lights in a unsafe way.. Like I said if you do tint them just don't go super dark.. Or jus drive with your lights on all the time so there always more visible to other drivers

2012GTCS

Simply tinting the lights is usually not illegal. It all depends on if the lights are visible from a certain amount of feet away.

chrissy0022

he is correct.... hence my accident... my lights are tinted but can be seen from the required distance.. i was STOPPED and was hit and my taillights never came into question the other guy was cited for following to closely and his insurance company has accepted all liability....

brewsky54

dam chrissy, what a buzzkill. I thought I was going to get rich quick-like. Oh well, I guess I'll go to work tomorrow...

bones302

a-Ha!


they will always assign some blame to you if they can when/if they find out they were tinted. Doesn't happen often and don't necessarily need the police report to state it. And, it will happen without you knowing about it in all likelihood. So in the end you will always be taking some kind of chance running tinted taillights. and so we are on the same page, the 2013 mustang LED taillights are not tinted, they are clear. the surrounds are black

can't we all just get along and focus on the important things, like just how awesome 05GT-O.C.D's Avatar is?