Clear tailights???

[vegaschevy]

Last time I checked that no state registered vehicle conforms to federal laws, they conform to state laws. Which in my opinion negates the DOT symbol in my opinion as well!!

[67ChevyRedneck]

Under the Supremacy clause in article VI, paragraph 2 of the constitution, provides that the constitution and federal laws override any conflicting provisions in the state constitution or state laws.

[BADPURPLE70CHEVY]

Never had an issue with my clears on the purple truck in the pic. It helps that i have tons of police and sheriff friends.

[vegaschevy]

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

Under the Supremacy clause in article VI, paragraph 2 of the constitution, provides that the constitution and federal laws override any conflicting provisions in the state constitution or state laws.

hmmm really? better check north las vegas gun laws, and ca gun laws... is that how it is suppose to work?

[longhorn396]

Yea it does haha

[longhorn396]

Originally Posted by vegaschevy

hmmm really? better check north las vegas gun laws, and ca gun laws... is that how it is suppose to work?

lol. hes got a point

[67ChevyRedneck]

Originally Posted by vegaschevy

hmmm really? better check north las vegas gun laws, and ca gun laws... is that how it is suppose to work?

Don't know, not a lawyer, nor do I care about north las vegas nor california gun laws

[Kid]

I put a set of clears on my kids 68 p/u, didn't know their outlawed. If you think about it & apply some common sense though, I don't think I want to leave the truck parked on the side of the road after dark with clear lenses... I'll be removing them promptly

[Shane]

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

Don't know, not a lawyer, nor do I care about north las vegas nor california gun laws

That's cool and all that you don't care & I respect that, but you may want to brush up on the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights before handing out very much free Constitutional Law advice where States Rights and Federal jurisdiction are concerned.

If Federal jurisdiction is the precedent, as you claim, when it comes to automotive requirements, then please explain the various window tint, radar detector and bumper height laws that differ state to state.

[longhorn396]

calm down guys geez. haha

[67ChevyRedneck]

That's just Shanes personality

But I guess he skipped past the 1st one of them thar fancy ammendments that say's I can say whatever I want to... or can I?

[Shane]

Once it stops being TRUE it's no longer protected by that pesky thing called the 1st Amendment.

Just a helpful hint: search on libel, slander, and private action concerning the 1st Amendment.

Anywhoo ... back to the original discussion ... how is Lexus able to sell this vehicle with clear tail lights if they are against Federal law?

[67ChevyRedneck]

I didn't read anything that said clear lenses were illegal as long as the light emitted was red, had a minimum brightness, and the lens had certain reflective qualities. The aftermarket lenses may have been pulled because they could not meet DOT approval in either one or all of the requirements, or maybe people were using white bulbs when they should have been using red? In the case of the Lexus, it's the OEM following the rules. If the Federal goverment has no say in how cars are made why are there federal crash test standards, emission standards, etc?

[71tahoe]

Originally Posted by Shane

Once it stops being TRUE it's no longer protected by that pesky thing called the 1st Amendment.

Just a helpful hint: search on libel, slander, and private action concerning the 1st Amendment.

Anywhoo ... back to the original discussion ... how is Lexus able to sell this vehicle with clear tail lights if they are against Federal law?

Red reflector in the bumper?

[67ChevyRedneck]

Originally Posted by 71tahoe

Red reflector in the bumper?

Maybe that's the key to this whole mess. Vehicles with modified taillights that only have clear lenses have no red reflectors on/in them, or at the back of the vehicle?

[fixit-p]

Nope the red reflector is a separate requirement I install 4" and oval STT lights all day long and none of them have reflectors on the lens (some do but not all) in my case we install separate reflectors and conspicuity tape (ANSI requirement) to satisfy the reflective requirement. The non-reflective STT lights are DOT approved which makes them legal. The aftermarket clear lens' would have to be tested to meet all FMVSS requirements to be DOT certified plain and simple if its not DOT certified it's illegal.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

I didn't read anything that said clear lenses were illegal as long as the light emitted was red, had a minimum brightness, and the lens had certain reflective qualities.

You may want to refer to the first page of this thread. That's where this whole she-bang took off.

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

The aftermarket lenses may have been pulled because they could not meet DOT approval in either one or all of the requirements, or maybe people were using white bulbs when they should have been using red? In the case of the Lexus, it's the OEM following the rules.

How so and what rules? The debate in this thread is that clear tail light lenses are illegal ... nothing about additional red reflectors. The picture shown clearly shows that is NOT the case. But I do think you and fixit-p are on to something with the DOT approval.

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

If the Federal goverment has no say in how cars are made why are there federal crash test standards, emission standards, etc?

In all fairness, you never answered the first question that's on the table concerning Federal jurisdiction on locally controlled items such as window tint, radar detectors and bumper heights.

Here's the debate up to this point: it was stated that ALL clear tail light lenses were against FEDERAL LAW & i then asked for a source on this federal law. i'm not disputing straight out because there is some validity in the statement that you don't see near as many vehicles with clear tail light lenses as we once did, i'm just looking for qualification of the federal law statement. It has been shown with the pic of the lexus with clear OEM lens that tail light lens are not illegal simply by being clear.

I'm not arguing that they aren't illegal. I'm only saying that there is a some reason other than them just being clear that makes them illegal. What's weird is I can find "DOT approved clear tail light lens" for motorcycles on the 'Net for sale ... but none for cars.

Why are they DOT approved for one, but not the other?

p.s. good clean debate guys ... no mud slinging or personal attacks ... that's how its suppose to be.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by fixit-p

The aftermarket clear lens' would have to be tested to meet all FMVSS requirements to be DOT certified plain and simple if its not DOT certified it's illegal.

I think fixit-p's experience in these matters and his statement is key to this entire thread.

They are illegal because they are not DOT approved. Not because they are clear.

[Gene]

I will install some reflective tape under the clear lens as that makes sense. My lenses do not say DOT approved on them.

[Longhorn Man]

like said earlier, they reflect white light, not red. That is why they are not DOT approved. Simply adding reflective tape around them will not make them technicly legal.

[Shane]

The OEM tail lights on the Lexus reflect white light as well. How are they not illegal?

[Shane]

<crickets>

[Longhorn Man]

those don't have reflectors in them at all, just clear plastic.
And to address an earlier comment

it was stated that ALL clear tail light lenses were against FEDERAL LAW

the topic of the thread was tail lights on a 69 longhorn, we can broaden it to 67 - 72 trucks, and when I said they were illegal, I never said ALL clear tail lights. I said the feds are cracking down on illegal tail lights, which these ones fall under.
Therre are clear tail lights made that are legal, most of the ones you see are not. They either reflect white, don't reflect at all, or reduce the amount of emitted light to an unsafe level. (I don't know the specific test or at what distance they should be tested at).
However, the clear tail lights that are made (or possibly were being made) for the 67 - 72 GM trucks, reflect a white color instead of red. The only way these could be legal is if they reflected red, or if they had a red reflector mounted seperately that would be required to be mounted, and would also need to be listed in the DOT "books" for that model lens.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Longhorn Man

like said earlier, they reflect white light, not red. That is why they are not DOT approved. Simply adding reflective tape around them will not make them technicly legal.

I am going to use red reflective tape under them. Thus making my truck legal in the feds eyes and also the great state of Oklahoma. That is unless someone posts a federal statute stating that red reflective tape mounted under a clear lens is a no no, and if that is indeed the case I will walk straight to the trash can and chunk these suckers in...

[1LoC10]

The Lexus has the red reflectors in the bumper