Tinted tail lights and the law

Just having a bit of a think here, I've got tinted tail lights on the Focus, and I honestly didn't care whether or not it was legal to do so.

But thinking about this a bit more - could it be possible that even though they are tinted, they could still be legal? ie tail lights visible from x metres away.

Keep in mind that the reflectors on the Foc are on the lower rear fog and reverse lights.

Have you had any run ins with the police with tinted tails?

[T3man]

Yes it's possible they could still be legal - but doubtful. And the onus is on YOU to prove they comply with the ADRs if a copper pulls you over. So if you want to get them "engineered" you will get a piece of paper to show any copper, or the mechanic who does your next rego check pink slip.

[Polyal]

What is the legal distance in which they need to be visible?

I had them on one of my previous cars, looked great. But, it was sometimes hard to see during the day when the light hits at a certain angle.

All depends on how far you have gone. Mine were pretty dark and never had an issue, even had police behind and say nothing. Got pics of them on your focus? Would look good with the black duco.

This is in full sunlight - at night the lights blend in with the body. Not sure on visible distance.

[fairBA]

I had this done to my old 626 (i was young) - I drove around for 2 years or so and never got questioned. You'll find your insurance co will make a deal out of it...

[Yellow_Festiva]

Hmmm just say you got rear ended. It is almost always that case that whoever is the car that rear ends another is at fault.

But if you had tinted lights it may give a savy lawyer a reason to get out of it, leaving you high and dry to repair both your car as well as covering all the costs for the other party.

[WASP]

If it didn't come out that way from factory it will be deemed illegal..initally. If it's worth the fight (which it isn't) you may find that there could be some justification in the transport rules that allows you a curtain darlness of tint on them. If your windows are darker than legal, car is lowered, aftermarket exhaust etc, etc then I think having the tail-lights tinited will only being more attention to yourself in a bad way. It would be a shame to have to take it all off over the tail lights...

Without trying to sound too much like a kill-joy, the bigger issue is making sure the tinited taillights will not void your insurance policy.

P.S. they do look good however!

[05MkIIFutura]

If they reduce the visibility of your brake lights, then my logic says you should possibly contemplate removing the tint from a very important safety feature of your car.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by 05MkIIFutura

If they reduce the visibility of your brake lights, then my logic says you should possibly contemplate removing the tint from a very important safety feature of your car.

You have the high mount aswell dont you? Thats how I used to justify it to myself..LOL

I can imagine if the insurance company woke up to it you would be up for a hell of a fight, and you would not win as the law is final. IIRC the law says no tinting; end of story really.

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by Polyal

But, it was sometimes hard to see during the day when the light hits at a certain angle.

Same can be said for many factory tail lamps. This will be a hard one to answer.

[Polyal]

Thats what I got away with, but I was always paranoid about getting done or some smarty pants running up the back of me knowing they could get away with it.

Atleast you have a lot of choice with the focus for after market lights, some of them look really good.

I thought the law was if you are hit from behind its the other persons fault - my brother's Pulsar's electrical system died on a dual carrage way in the dead of the night. The car rolled to a stop no lights or nothing, and there was no shoulder to roll onto. There was a car coming behind them, and locked up. Collided around 20kmh, the other person was at fault.

The lights, even with the tint, are a lot brighter than many of the aftermarket units I've seen.

[Polyal]

At the end of the day if you are confident and can sleep at night then just leave it. You know the risks so atleast you know where you stand. If an engineer was to ok it then he will be just as liable I would have thought. Thus I dont think one would be silly enough to do so.

The above example was through mechanical failure, not a modification.

[TZENU]

Originally Posted by ORSMT

Same can be said for many factory tail lamps. This will be a hard one to answer.

E.g. Series 6 RX7s have darker tailights (tinted) from the factory. A mate and I spent half an hour trying to convince an officer that they came like that from the factory. He didn't believe us, but the next day it was legally back on the road without a single change to the car.

[Kashmir Mafia]

Originally Posted by Polyal

I can imagine if the insurance company woke up to it you would be up for a hell of a fight, and you would not win as the law is final. IIRC the law says no tinting; end of story really.

Not entirely correct. The insurance company would have to prove that the darker tint caused/contributed to an accident. It's the same with bald tyres, if you have bald tyres and an accident in the dry your insurer may try to deny the claim but you should be able to successfully appeal the decision. If they're bald and the road is wet - forget it, you're gone.

So with the tint, it would be arguable that tint "may" contribute/cause an accident if the vision of the lights was affected.

There isn't usually a general "unroadworthy" exclusion in your policy, the vehicle just has to be registered, or if it's not registered it has to be in a roadworthy condition (this is according to NRMA, refer below, you might want to check your actual policy). Most insurers have a similar wording which basically get back to what I said earlier regarding them having to prove that it was the cause/contributor to the accident.

Just to add a bit more to what I said above. If your car had a broken headlight (ie not roadworthy) and someone ran into the back of you at a set of traffic lights, the insurance company would pay your claim without question as the broken headlight had nothing to do with the accident.

[Nikked]

Chuck some LED's in there and tint them more.

[ZC001]

Tinted taillights are cool. If anyone likes whiplash and defending your own case in court when your insurance company (quite rightly) denies your claim, go for it. Hope whatever rearends you is not expensive. Or a truck.

[Keepleft]

The simple answer is NO.

Your lights are UNECE compliant and marked as such. Blacking out the lamps reduces the photometric performance of the lamp unit on which World Conformity was granted. The only true way to determine then if the lamp still complies AFTER modification, is to pay the fees to have each FUNCTION tested once gain, at a laboratory. (See Opt etc at Melb).

Tint your taillights here in NSW and you would generally face a defect. This outcome applies nationally via non Compliance with the National Vehicle Standards for the second hand market.

Any aftermarket taillamp you purchase should bear UNECE markings or be specifically ADR marked for EACH function. Replacement lamps MUST carry the same functions as original, IF lacking rear red reflex reflectors, these must then be added to the vehicle body per NVS etc.

Some 'smoke' and clear coloured lamps do bear E marks and are fine.

If you wish to black out your taillights etc, or reduce the lamp compartment 'screen' to a 'hole' for visual effect etc for kool purposes, DO SO, and await law enforcement action in time.

Topic seems all very tiny twinky (RTA) to me.

[|||]

ive never understood the concept myself. there's enough bad drivers on the road already without making it easier for them to hit you from behind. looks rice to me.

Thanks all for your input.

There are a few posts on here that show a resentment to what I've done who probably imagine that I'm some tool who's completly blacked out the lgihts and you can't see the car driving down the road - Not the case at all. Side by side with my brothers SSS my tail lights are brighter. Being higher on the tail results in the lights right at eye level as well. So on a functional or brightness level they are fine IMO.

But its the legalities with RTA and Insurance that was begining to worrying me.

Would anyone know more about what the minimum performance of tail lights/brake and rear indicators should be and details of how to get them certified

AND

Do aftermarket rear lights that have the E-mark - they are approved for Europe, but is the E-mark recognised locally by ADR/RTA and automatically comply?

[Dezza]

Originally Posted by TZENU

E.g. Series 6 RX7s have darker tailights (tinted) from the factory. A mate and I spent half an hour trying to convince an officer that they came like that from the factory. He didn't believe us, but the next day it was legally back on the road without a single change to the car.

Another model closer to home is the FC/FD LTD

These are the factory lights

[J_Tank]

Mate while they do look good I have to agree with Keep left on this. Lights are an area where there is no room whatsoever to move. Compliant lights are marked as such and any modification to these at all will result in them being non compliant. Most likely as others have stated the authorities may not bother, but for my mind, this is a very visible illegal modification and a perfect excuse, if someone wanted one, to pull you over and go over the car.

Well I ended up taking the tint off sometime last week, the next morning look what happened.

[brenx]

hows that for luck!

[Bill M]

I was looking at a pair of tailights for an AU ute at a swap meet the other week and on the packaging was a label that stated " For off road use only"
No they wern't dark tinted but it raises the whole question of alternate aftermarket styles as to whether they are ADR compliant?
cheers
Bill.

I was parked at the station and a Ford Territory backed into me.