Tail Light Tinting

[0081]

Clear and uncolored, then tail lights would not be red, indicators not amber. I think this may refer to the likes of headlight protectors. If they are going to make regulations like that, they would do better to make them clear and easy for everybody to interpret.

It says any lamp cover not what the lamp is mad from. It is quite easy to read when compared to other parts of the law.

Holden has made the car to aust standards an that quote says that you can't cover the lamp with anything other than a clear untinted coloured cover. Eg the head light covers.
In short nothing can be placed over the lamps unless it's overheating100% clear.

I guess the op can eat his own words and say sorry now..

 

[Nut Kracker]

Clear and uncolored, then tail lights would not be red, indicators not amber. I think this may refer to the likes of headlight protectors. If they are going to make regulations like that, they would do better to make them clear and easy for everybody to interpret.

Have a closer look at the quote.
The standards for registration specify" colour and performance requirements".
That means, the standards require a light to be of certain colours , red amber ect.
And yes it also refers to headlights covers.

 

[SH.00.MA]

Makes me wonder, do you guys follow every law to the tee... pulling up regulations and whatnot, have you ever gone faster than 110 on the freeway, ever not completely stopped at a stop sign etc... Man the amount of crapping on about laws...

Pretty much anything that is not a direct factory replacement on a car is a defect, but a lot of people do it...

 

[ari666]

Makes me wonder, do you guys follow every law to the tee... pulling up regulations and whatnot, have you ever gone faster than 110 on the freeway, ever not completely stopped at a stop sign etc... Man the amount of crapping on about laws...

Pretty much anything that is not a direct factory replacement on a car is a defect, but a lot of people do it...

retarded post is retarded.

i havnt read the whole thread to know that this is yet another "omg its so unfair that i cant have tinted lights"

so here we go again for the zillionth time:
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 13/00 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles) 2005

ADR 13/00 states clearly that any lamp needs to pass both colour (trichromatic) and luminescence (brightness) [my spelling is probably wrong, but whatevs] the main concern of tinting is that the performance of the rear retro reflectors will be compromised by the colour/tint over the top. you kids may think its stupid or unfair, but try telling me that after you car is rear ended while parked on the street cos' the driver couldnt see your retro's till it was too late.

and the best part is, if the insurance company clock onto the fact your retro's were tinted, YOU foot the bill, even though you werent even in the car.

all these ADR's were introduced for a REASON. not to make your life difficult, but for peoples safety and well being. you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact is tinted reduces the performance of your lights which are a safety item, and thus, ADR 13/00 gets my full support.

 

[ari666]

this car looks like a retard owns it:

man, i would LOVE to line that thing up against my impala and see who comes out 2nd best. plus the added benefit of having your insurance pay for the repairs.

 

[Nut Kracker]

And that's why there are so many accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads. They are there for a reason.
Maybe if people did stick to the "laws", instead of being stupid, there might be fewer incidents.

 

[showbags]

It's not only it breaks ADR's, but the fact that no one else knows what the fk your doing because they can't see your lights.

 

[ari666]

But, been thinking maybe i should remove it - what would be the go to get em back to stock appearance lots of sanding till the spray is gone and then clearcoat to shine it up and cut and polish !?

i really support this idea. thinners should wipe it off no problem, no sanding or buffing required. DO IT. these guys are not fking around when they say you will be at fault in a crash.

 

[ari666]

Now, if the light is visible to this very specification stated in the regulation, how can you possibly be defected?

the specs quoted are meaningless. ADR's determin compliance, not local laws. local laws are based on the assumption that the lights comply with ADR's. tintings means they are a non conformist item thus can be defected.

 

[ari666]

So now, you tell me why I can't have tinted tail lights if they still perform at the specification stated in the regulation. See my point?

trichmoatic tests are around 600 bucks per light (one test per side) and luminescence tests are around 200 for the pair. so if you wanna spend $1400 on evidence, then go right ahead, but, since the modification was not performed to ISO9001 standards, then the test report would only pertain to your lights, you could never on-sell the evidence.


eeeeepic waste of money