Clear tailights???

[tim21391]

im running clear front turn signals and clear tails and ive been pulled over for speeding and the cop didnt say anything about my clear lights.. want some more pics of them on the truck check out my build thread in my signature

[1LoC10]

I think when it comes to old trucks and cars, cops look past it or dont even notice.... if it was an S10 or a something new then you would have probs

[Shane]

Originally Posted by Longhorn Man

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

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.

Sorry, I must be confused cause here is what I remember you saying on the first page.

federal law dictates the tail lights must have red reflectors in them

That is not an accurate statement and that was the only point I was trying to make.

[Longhorn Man]

ok, rephrase, no white light reflectors, and red reflectors as part of the rear of the vehicle.
my bad.

[BADPURPLE70CHEVY]

Most cops i know would warn you if they were a problem...

[eightbanger]

As has been said earlier...these aftermarket clear lenses will not get the DOT stamp of approval because they do not have any red reflective capability. And if your not getting a pull from the coppers it may have more to do with them just not realising that your lenses have no red reflecting ability, because when they saw you drive by and put your blinker on they showed red, and when you stopped at the junction they showed red, then again you maybe unlucky and get the eagle eyed copper who just loves upholding the letter of the law...well then your gonna get a tug. The reason that ****ty Lexus or Range Rovers and the like can have clear lenses is simply that they have the capacity to reflect red light somewhere on the rear of the vehicle....quite often in the the bumper.

[Shane]

<sigh> As has been said earlier ... the red reflectivity of the bumper mounted reflectors has NOTHING to do with the tail light lens ability to pass DOT inspection.

It's an entirely separate requirement.

So much for that theory.

[eightbanger]

Originally Posted by Shane

<sigh> As has been said earlier ... the red reflectivity of the bumper mounted reflectors has NOTHING to do with the tail light lens ability to pass DOT inspection.

It's an entirely separate requirement.

So much for that theory.

I agree entirely Shanester....I was just saying that as long as there is something back there reflecting red, that should keep the law off your case.
Though not being an expert on UK traffic law let alone the US....I could be talkin outta the hole that has no teeth.
Just my 2 cents.

[Longhorn Man]

shane, in big rigs, as mentioned earlier, many of the model 40 and model 60 lamps have no reflectors built in, just lights(the ones with reflectors built in are uncommon). The DOT certification with the non reflective lamps is only legit if there is a reflector at the corners of the rear of the truck/trailer, or if reflective tape is used.
When a light gets its DOT certification, the paperwork will dictate what needs to be done, or what goes with it to meet the certification. The Lexus shown above, while I don't know this for certian, I'm willing to bet that the DOT certification number states that those lenses are only legal when reflectors are used within 'X' inches of the outer edges on the rear facing part of the vehicle.

[fixit-p]

Here is the official interpretation from the NHTSA full text here http://fmvss108.tripod.com/interps/r...ns_6_20_00.htm

This document retrieved from the NHTSA legal interpretations database.

We are replying to your e-mail of April 25, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You relate that you have bought a set of "clear tail lamps" for use on your truck, which "state that they are dot approved." The units "have the red reflector." You are "using red bulbs in the lamps to make the lights red." You ask whether the lenses are legal.

In our view, the manufacture and/or sale of clear lenses intended for use on stop lamps or taillamps violates Federal law because they are not identical to the original lenses they are intended to replace, and would not provide a proper lamp color. We further advise that, under certain circumstances, installation of clear lenses on the rear of a motor vehicle could also violate Federal law. And as we have advised before, whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles, and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/20/00

[Shane]

Now that is the type of source I was asking about earlier. Thanks fixit-p.

[longhorn396]

ok. oh well im putting them on anyway. lol