• Got the Contributing Memberships stuff finally worked out and made up a thread as a sort of "How-To" to help people figure out how to participate. So if you need help figuring it out, here's the thread you need to take a look at -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3581 Thank you, everyone! Rich Z.

black-out lenses

98 softtail

98 softtail

Bug Killer
I thought I saw a post on here a while back about putting black-out lenses in taillights. I am thinking I want to do this but I ain't sure of the legality of them. If anyone knows if they are legal here in florida let me know.

Thanks,
Joe B.:confused:
 
Hey Joe,

I've got them on my C6 and have seen them on a few othe Vette's around here. As far as the legality of them....:shrug01: ?

~Ray
 
Yes and no.

They're legal as long as the taillights are brake lights are visible from a certain distance (I'll have to get you the link to the statutes).

The bigger issue is safety.

The drivers in this state suck bad enough on thier own, no need to assist them. :thumbsdown:

I love the look of black outs but I'd go dark and save them for shows and parking lots and such:thumbsup:
 
some on told me a long time ago and im not sure of how reputable the source was that they are legal, however if someone rear ends you its your fault.
 
I thought Florida auto insurance is basically "no fault"? :shrug01:
 
I would not do it. I was running in a caravan up the Suncoast Parkway recently, and was following a vette with them. A car running further ahead had to slow suddenly, and the sun was shining right on the tail lights in front of me, and before I realized it I had to stand on my brakes. I could not see his brakes lights! I will not run behind someone who has black outs. :thumbsdown: JMO
 
zzzona said:
I would not do it. I was running in a caravan up the Suncoast Parkway recently, and was following a vette with them. A car running further ahead had to slow suddenly, and the sun was shining right on the tail lights in front of me, and before I realized it I had to stand on my brakes. I could not see his brakes lights! I will not run behind someone who has black outs. :thumbsdown: JMO
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: I agree 100% with him on this point.

I thought Florida auto insurance is basically "no fault"?

Insurance is considered "no fault" but if it were truly no fault, the lawyers would go broke:rofl1:

No fault simply means that your insurance company pays for your damages and thiers for theirs. It's then that the companies try to get thier $$ back from the other parties insurer.

Law enforcement determines who is "at fault" on scene through thier investigation.

It's later "re-evaluated", "revisited" and "reviewed" by an adjuster or worse yet, a clerk with little to no knowlege of crash investigation with one goal in mind...save the company $$$$!!!!

If you have black outs on and the other party (take the post above for instance) says they were following at a safe distance and speed and lets say there are witnesses to support this allegation, but couldn't see your brake lights?

1st, they will likely win thier case in court, then the attorney(ies) and adjusters assigned to represent the insurance company will begin attempting to subrogate damages. That means they are going to try to assign a percentage of "fault" to each party to limit what they are responsible to pay.

So, if you hit the guy in the back, although technically at "fault", you may be found not guilty due to the envirnmental factors (again as mentioned by the previous post), and the other parties insurance company may end up paying part of the damages due to thier modification of the vehicle in such a manner as to render it unsafe.

If you are the person who is hit, this may limit the amount of benefits ($$$) you receive or may cause you to have to hire an attorney to get them:(.

In summary: (for those that didn't want to read all that mumbo jumbo):

1) Yes they are legal as long as the visibility limits are met.
2) There is still a possibility that you could be ticketed under a more obscure statute.
3) You may limit your benefit if hit in the rear, if your car is so equiped.
4) You may have a chance of winning your traffic case if you strike someone in the rear who has these installed.
5) You (your insurer) may be able to weasel out of paying quite as much if you/they can prove that the lenses were the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the rear end collision!
:thumbsup:

Gordon
 
I am a new owner ('02 Z06) and happen to be a traffic attorney in Miami-Dade County. I purchased the car last week and the first thing I did was remove the tail light blackouts. Florida Statute §316.234(1) states:

Any vehicle may be equipped and, when required under this chapter, 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 300 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 one or more other rear lamps. An object, material, or covering that alters the stop lamp's visibility from 300 feet to the rear in normal sunlight may not be placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied over a stop lamp.

Interpretation of this will differ between law enforcement officers and judges, so be prepared to defend your position should you choose to install them. If they dim the light emitted from the stop lamp at 300 feet...you loose. If they alter the color of the light emitted from red or amber...you loose.

As for "no fault," this applies to your personal injury protection benefits. You are required to have this minimal insurance in the event you’re injured. Your insurance company automatically pays for your damages, regardless of who is at fault for the accident. It only pays for 80% of your medical bills and lost income up to the limits of your policy ($10,000) after your deductible. Your pain and suffering, as well as medical bills over the policy limits, won'’t be covered. And remember that deductible? You are self-insured for that amount. If you have a $2,000 deductible on your PIP...that's your nickel.

Dave
 
I did get a set of the "static-cling" blackouts just to see if they did alter the viewable distance, and although I could still see them from a hundred feet or so, I decided to go with the thought that if I were in a crash and those blackouts were on there, all anyone would have to say is that they couldn't see my brakelights and now it's my fault. So I guess I will keep them for the car shows, as long as I remember to remove them before I head out...LOL !
Thanks for the info everyone, and if I ever get a ticket down in Miami I know who to contact, thanks Dave.
 
Good stuff! Thanks! Dave!
And :welcome: to the site.
Please chime in at any time and keep us on the up & up.
 
First off...

tktlwyr said:
I am a new owner

:welcome: :welcome: :welcome: to the Forum Dave!
"If they dim the light emitted from the stop lamp at 300 feet...you loose. If they alter the color of the light emitted from red or amber".
Dave
Click to expand...
I guess i'll be going outside tonight and measuring off 300' to see if they're "dimmed" or not seen. If so...OFF they come!:banghead:

Thanks for the info Dave :thumbsup: . Now post some :pics: :D .

~Ray
 
tktlwyr said:
Remember Ray...the statute says normal sunlight. ;)

Dave
Click to expand...

Thats the key:thumbsup:

A particular officer with Ocala PD was harassing a member of a club I am with over blackouts on his Z28.

I reviewed the statute, measured off a distance + (to keep it legit) and did video and still photography with and without using normal sunlight.

Not that much difference in the 2 with his particular set up. They just wern't that black!

Got a copy of the NWS report for the day/time and location and some other supporting information, and sent a letter to the Chief.

He hasn't had a problem since;)

Just have to do your homework.

I'm with Dave thought. I like the look, especially on a black car. I'll keep them for shows and keep them locked away for the street. It's easy enough to get sued today as it is. There's no reason to give the insurance company another reason to deny coverage or add fuel to a PI attorney's fire :NoNo:

Dave, welcome to the site :welcome:

Glad to have the legal expertise on board:thumbsup: :icon_cheers:

Gordon
 
Years ago a young man in Lakeland put black panty hose over his CRX lenses. He was rearended by a lady and my Trooper gave her a citation for the collision. She lost the fight against the ticket in court and was guilty of the careless driving.

Fast forward to civil court, he lost this time around since he placed an object on his car that was not in compliance with FL law and the jury felt that it contributed to the crash. $100,000.00 lesson for this kid . . .
 
OK, now how about this scenerio...

I am stopped at a light on level ground, manual transmission, no need to have my foot on the brake to light up my brake lights but I do have the evil "blackouts" on my car, another driver plows into the back of my car, their defense being that they didnot see my brakelights because of my evil "blackouts" but because my foot was not on the brake at the time of the accident there were no brakelights to light-up.
In this case there is no distance to be judged so where does the fault lie here?
How would such a civil case be brought forth before the court?

Joe B.
 
Well honestly if the driver could not see your vehicle stopped at the intersection NOR the stoplight itself, I seriously doubt the blackouts would be a significant influence in the accident.

Hell, is it OK to run over pedestrians when they are jaywalking? :nonod:
 
Rich I agree, If they couldn't see that big butt-end of my yellow vette sitting there I don't think there would be much of a case.
 
98 softtail said:
OK, now how about this scenerio...

I am stopped at a light on level ground, manual transmission, no need to have my foot on the brake to light up my brake lights but I do have the evil "blackouts" on my car, another driver plows into the back of my car, their defense being that they didnot see my brakelights because of my evil "blackouts" but because my foot was not on the brake at the time of the accident there were no brakelights to light-up.
In this case there is no distance to be judged so where does the fault lie here?
How would such a civil case be brought forth before the court?

Joe B.
Click to expand...

Joe,

In the crash you describe, the blackouts would not be an issue since you didn't have your foot on the brake or the lights illuminated and since there was no reason to do so.

The person in the striking vehicle should be cited with the crash.

If it were me, I'd be doing a little HGN or let's step over here and do what I ask you to do:rofl1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top