Tinted lights?....cops?

[BeauxXL1200]

I went with Big Worm Graphix. They have 3 levels of tint.

https://www.bigwormgraphix.com/2015-17-mustang-smoked-lens-protection-277.html

I applied Big Worms lightest tint to all the exterior lights/lenses shortly after I bought the car in 11/14. Never had any issues with law enforcement.

In fact, I was pulled over for the first time a week or so. I got on it a little too much turning left from a red light stop. Wound out first pretty good and hit second pretty hard. The officer asked if there was a reason I was going so fast. I said no officer, I just got on it a bit too much. He ran me thru the system and came back and gave me a warning. He didn't say anything about the tinted lights or the fact I'm not running the front license plate. (I keep it on the front passenger floor board in its Sto-n-Show bracket).

Here are a few pics showing the tint.

Sponsored

 

[xXANCHORMONXx]

But if they output the same amount amount of lumens (or even very slightly less) why would you buy the ugly one? If someone isn't going to see you with the tint they aren't going to see you without it. With that kind of reasoning we should all drive the yellow mustangs because the dark colors aren't visible enough.

There are many ways that I could respond to this, I'll hold off for now

 

[Blk2015GT]

You nay sayers do realize that even with the darkest tints available these headlight are still brighter than any traditional bulb lights in vehicles more than 5 years old? You do realize that the average age of vehicles on US roads is currently in the double digits right?

I hate people who use the "well others are driving worse things so I'm ok" argument I just used as much as the next person but in this case I find it relevant.

I have an F-150 with LEDs that is the brightest vehicle I've ever driven at night. My mustang provides the same amount of forward visibility even with the AM tints installed. I find that on my back country jaunts I rarely use my brights because I do not even think of them given the lack of necessity to see further than my low beams

The regulations for headlights do vary state to state but they are far outdated. Today's headlights far exceed the current regulations which are still low enough that the ever aging vehicles on the road can still meet them in most cases.

Brighter is better but the minimal decrease in output lumens caused by the light tints people are running still puts our HID headlights in the top 1% of vehicles on the road.

I cannot speak to the taillights as I love the red on black look and kept mine stock.

Edit: I know how much better stats and facts speak for themselves so here is my source. The US Department of Transportation. Average registered vehicle age in the US through 2014. https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/...ortation_statistics/html/table_01_26.html_mfd

We're mainly talking taillights, but this is all irrelevant in real life practice. The insurance has more money than every member of this forum combined time many times over. They WILL deny your claim when they inspect the vehicle and see light tinting. Do you think they're just going to cut you a say $10-20k check for the damage without a fight if there is even a 10% chance that they dont legally have to pay out? :headbonk: Every insurance company has a threshold where denying a borderline claim and being sued (costs to defend) is in their best interests.

No matter how "right" you are you can easily be steamrolled into a legal battle that will cost you every penny you have trying to defend against a giant corporation with near unlimited resources; even if you are "right."

And then comes in the personal injury attorney when they have "whiplash" from hitting you taking you to the woodshed again defending yet another costly case.

I have seen it upteen times with homeowners insurance from clients who call in who are steamrolled because they are being sued for $5k of water damage by a neighboring condo's insurance in subrogation but defending the case will cost them more than that in my office's fees and experts. So even if they defend and win they lose, and it's cheaper to pay the damages then fight the insurance.


None of you have to convince me of your personal position on your car. Frankly, I do this stuff for a living. You will have to convince yourself to fork over minimum 5-10 grand to an attorney for a retainer to defend yourself though, no matter how right you think you are/end up being, for some $25 tints. Thus I chose to remove mine days after putting them on as the risk was too much after debating it.

 

[Fray_s550]

I live in California and I have tinted lights from AM on my stang! I have driven alot in front of cops (cop is behind me) and one time I remember a motorcycle cop driving behind me. I was never pulled over so I don't think its illegal or maybe they just dont care.

 

[BeauxXL1200]

We're mainly talking taillights, but this is all irrelevant in real life practice. The insurance has more money than every member of this forum combined time many times over.

They WILL deny your claim when they inspect the vehicle and see light tinting. Do you think they're just going to cut you a say $10-20k check for the damage without a fight if there is even a 10% chance that they dont legally have to pay out? :headbonk: Every insurance company has a threshold where denying a borderline claim and being sued (costs to defend) is in their best interests.

No matter how "right" you are you can easily be steamrolled into a legal battle that will cost you every penny you have trying to defend against a giant corporation with near unlimited resources; even if you are "right."

And then comes in the personal injury attorney when they have "whiplash" from hitting you taking you to the woodshed again defending yet another costly case.

I have seen it upteen times with homeowners insurance from clients who call in who are steamrolled because they are being sued for $5k of water damage by a neighboring condo's insurance in subrogation but defending the case will cost them more than that in my office's fees and experts. So even if they defend and win they lose, and it's cheaper to pay the damages then fight the insurance.

No, most cops wont care bottom line. But you ARE running a potential insurance risk/costly battle; adults need to recognize the risk and act accordingly. It is at your own risk frankly.

Well, if an insurance company wants to deny claims by arguing lightly tinted tail lights caused the accident, rather than their insured following too close, I'll let a jury decide that any day and win 9/10. :cheers::cheers:

 

[Dr.Pat]

I have the tint kit from AM...tail lights, front turn signals, 3rd brake light, and both sets of red reflectors. I used the headlight tint, but only to cover the amber reflectors. Haven't had any problems and get tons of compliments. All the lights are very visible through the tint

 

[Fordever]

I agree but realize the OEM lights are a certain brightness for a reason; to meet ALL state's legal requirements and for safety.People also seem to think everyone out there has 20/20 and the perfect night vision of a 20 year old. What about 80 year old grandma who doesnt see too well at night? The OEM lights on newer cars are bright for a reason. They give the person behind you an "oh sh*t that's bright" reaction if they aren't fully paying attention and could prevent an accident that didn't need to happen.

Will it prevent ALL accidents so why not just tint them? No, that is a red herring argument to support one's decision to tint taillights. It would be ridiculous to assert it prevents ALL rear end collisions. Hey it's your car that will get smashed up and in the shop for 6 weeks, not mine!

The assumption that oh this website sells a kit so it must legal or not distort light output is also flawed as the visibility standard is different in every state.

If you have $10 or $20 grand sitting around for attorney's fees and expert's fees to litigate the issue with your insurance company when they deny coverage because you KNOW you are right, then by all means tint away. Insurance companies are already looking for any way to deny claims as is as they are not in the business of paying out claims.

Some states (like here) are 1,000 feet; and that is assuming you can define "visible at" as that can be a subjective standard in itself. You can see the slippery slope you go down to litigate.

Like any mod, pay to play you are taking some level of risk. OEM lamps you have 0% chance of visibility claim issues. But hey Im an attorney so I LOVE when people make poor decisions and then have to fork over their cash when they get sued (right or wrong it WILL cost you out of pocket to defend) so.....

Do whatever you all want you're all adults but the online "experts" who tell you to not worry about it etc aren't going to pay your repair and legal bills.

I don't think too many 80 year old grandma's are driving mustangs with tinted headlights....:lol:

 

[Blk2015GT]

Well, if an insurance company wants to deny claims by arguing lightly tinted tail lights caused the accident, rather than their insured following too close, I'll let a jury decide that any day and win 9/10. :cheers::cheers:

Hey more power to you if you have the cash to play with. Business decisions like that pay my bills and paid for my car in full cash and other toys.

Personally I chose to remove the $25 tail light tints, easy cost/benefit, but hey.

I don't think too many 80 year old grandma's are driving mustangs with tinted headlights....:lol:

Uhhhhh I meant behind a mustang with tinted taillights

 

[MrVu1101]

Orange County Sherrif's department gave me two options: Take off the tint in front of him, or take a ticket. I'm an outside sales rep, so tickets are bad for me.... I took it off.

 

[Fordever]

I agree but realize the OEM lights are a certain brightness for a reason; to meet ALL state's legal requirements and for safety.People also seem to think everyone out there has 20/20 and the perfect night vision of a 20 year old. What about 80 year old grandma who doesnt see too well at night? The OEM lights on newer cars are bright for a reason. They give the person behind you an "oh sh*t that's bright" reaction if they aren't fully paying attention and could prevent an accident that didn't need to happen.

Will it prevent ALL accidents so why not just tint them? No, that is a red herring argument to support one's decision to tint taillights. It would be ridiculous to assert it prevents ALL rear end collisions. Hey it's your car that will get smashed up and in the shop for 6 weeks, not mine!

The assumption that oh this website sells a kit so it must legal or not distort light output is also flawed as the visibility standard is different in every state.

If you have $10 or $20 grand sitting around for attorney's fees and expert's fees to litigate the issue with your insurance company when they deny coverage because you KNOW you are right, then by all means tint away. Insurance companies are already looking for any way to deny claims as is as they are not in the business of paying out claims.

Some states (like here) are 1,000 feet; and that is assuming you can define "visible at" as that can be a subjective standard in itself. You can see the slippery slope you go down to litigate.

Like any mod, pay to play you are taking some level of risk. OEM lamps you have 0% chance of visibility claim issues. But hey Im an attorney so I LOVE when people make poor decisions and then have to fork over their cash when they get sued (right or wrong it WILL cost you out of pocket to defend) so.....

Do whatever you all want you're all adults but the online "experts" who tell you to not worry about it etc aren't going to pay your repair and legal bills.

What I don't get is if the new heads/tails are at a certain light output for safety reasons, then why are old cars still on the road with incandescent bulbs that give a lot less light. Until there s a certain light intensity specified, I am not sure how anyone can argue light output.?????:shrug:

Next point, I know a lawyer will try and screw you to the wall, but if you cant see a brake light at 'X' # of feet, then you probably shouldn't be driving. And if you rearend a person, then you are following to close or not paying attention.

 

[Rickycardo]

I spelled this out last year in a similar thread but I'll do it again

(625 ILCS 5/12-208) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-208)
Sec. 12-208. Signal lamps and signal devices.
(a) Every vehicle other than an antique vehicle displaying an antique plate or an expanded-use antique vehicle displaying expanded-use antique vehicle plates operated in this State shall be equipped with a stop lamp or lamps on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 500 feet to the rear in normal sunlight and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake, and which may but need not be incorporated with other rear lamps. During times when lighted lamps are not required, an antique vehicle or an expanded-use antique vehicle may be equipped with a stop lamp or lamps on the rear of such vehicle of the same type originally installed by the manufacturer as original equipment and in working order. However, at all other times, except as provided in subsection (a-1), such antique vehicle or expanded-use antique vehicle must be equipped with stop lamps meeting the requirements of Section 12-208 of this Act.

I say it would be hard to be rear-ended and say you couldn't see the brake lights at 500 feet.
Traveling at 60 mph you cover 88 feet per second. To cover 522 feet (shown in my earlier pics) takes 5.9 seconds. Assuming both cars are traveling 60 mph and my Mustang brakes from 60 to 0 in 250 feet that adds an additional 2.8 seconds of time to contact. Thats 8.7 seconds from the time my brakes lights illuminate until a vehicle behind me makes contact. Thats really a lot of time and distance.
I feel that the odds of my brake lights being to dim to be seen in time to avoid a collision are far too small for me to worry about. I'm fairly certain most rear end collision are due to inattention rather than brake lights being to dim.
Tint or don't but if you rear end my car I'll prove you were following too close, were distracted, were speeding, have a vehicle in poor mechanical condition or are just a non-driver.

 

[Westys10]

I run AM tint kit on basically every lamp. The tail light tint is easily bright enough to "pass" my states' distance requirement. However, any crappy attorney should be able to convince a judge that the tint inhibited the driver behind you. As stated, court fees are tremendous, and many times, the best attorney wins. Being right and winning a court case are two different things. I personally have photographs of my vehicle at given distances, should I ever need it. Will it be enough, who knows. If someone says it doesn't diminish light output, they are mistaken.

 

[Blk2015GT]

What I don't get is if the new heads/tails are at a certain light output for safety reasons, then why are old cars still on the road with incandescent bulbs that give a lot less light. Until there s a certain light intensity specified, I am not sure how anyone can argue light output.?????:shrug:

Next point, I know a lawyer will try and screw you to the wall, but if you cant see a brake light at 'X' # of feet, then you probably shouldn't be driving. And if you rearend a person, then you are following to close or not paying attention.

But that logic is based off an assumption that older cars lights being tinted were not illegal to begin with (not that you/people didnt get pulled over by a cop but in violation of the state's law found in court), no? Ie. perhaps that car model's (since every model is different even same manufacturer) were borderline bright enough to meet all state standards to begin with before tinting them.

I get what you're saying, but how much money are you prepared to spend to argue about light intensity by hiring expert witnesses (engineers, former cops, etc)? THAT is the question. The insurance company wont care about that argument; the person behind who hit you their insurance is coming after you/your insurance based on the tints, and then your insurance will follow suit to recoup if they have to pay out the other insurance.

How much in reserve savings do you have to fight off say Geico and State Farm together? Probably no one here has near enough even combining net worths.

Right or wrong laws are made to be interpreted in court; and something so like "visible" at 500 or 1000 feet is highly debatable. Plus, one judge/judge could find one way and another a different area of the same state totally different way. It does happen. So the insurance company with the deep pockets will likely take a risk and come after you at that point.

Im trying to give the other side of the story and risk involved, not be the wet blanket here. People are adults and can make their own choices based on all of the facts.

I run AM tint kit on basically every lamp. The tail light tint is easily bright enough to "pass" my states' distance requirement. However, any crappy attorney should be able to convince a judge that the tint inhibited the driver behind you. As stated, court fees are tremendous, and many times, the best attorney wins. Being right and winning a court case are two different things. I personally have photographs of my vehicle at given distances, should I ever need it. Will it be enough, who knows. If someone says it doesn't diminish light output, they are mistaken.

This. I would just change it that any crappy attorney could make an ARGUMENT the other way on the issue; sometimes being right isnt winning. If they can bleed you dry and force settlement it never sees a judge or jury; you have no money to present their case left even if you are 100% correct and could get the experts to agree with your position.

And you are convincing a jury typically who is going to put themselves in one of your shoes- you or the person who rear ended you. Most are going to find it hard to put themselves in your shoes tinting safety features of your car and most dont do it; more likely in the shoes of the person behind that modded silly car (usually import) driven by an 18 year old like they once have been.

 

[Manny]

Okay guys i have a out of the conversation question my left taillight keeps coming on and off like if the battery was to be dying off but ive noticed its wet inside the lights is their anyway a tint to the taillights could of caused the light to stop working???? And if soo what can i fo to fix it im needing help asap!!

 

[Blk2015GT]

Okay guys i have a out of the conversation question my left taillight keeps coming on and off like if the battery was to be dying off but ive noticed its wet inside the lights is their anyway a tint to the taillights could of caused the light to stop working???? And if soo what can i fo to fix it im needing help asap!!

Unlikely unless the install got water in there somehow, but the housings should be sealed regardless. pull the tints off (to prevent the dealership from making up any excuse not to honor the warranty fix) and then bring it into the dealership. Should be a warranty repair.

Sponsored