BKamp613

Just got pulled over by a Trooper, stating my Aero tails are illegal because you cant tell they're red from 1,000 feet.

When I asked about brake light illumination (clearly red, as he admitted) he said that doesn't matter. It's all about the color from 1,000ft when NOT illuminated. Is that right?

I still have my stockers, and I'll certainly put the Aeros back on, but wtf? Sorry if this is the wrong section. Shocker he pulled me over near two attractive chicks that were walking by. 50yr old cop's gotta look cool by the girls.

PS - I've had these for about 2 months. Plenty of cops around, no trouble.

10silverstang

Well I'm not sure about the laws where you live but out here in CA, we can't have tinted tail lights. And if I'm not mistaken those are the ones you have correct? Maybe it's because of that reason alone???? But, I have my stockers tinted because I don't care lol...but I've never had any issues so who knows. Sometimes it just depends on the kind of cop you bump into.

BKamp613

There was no dispute about them being bright and red when the brakes are applied, but simply that he deemed them not red enough when off.

Cruising around tonight I've seen 2 Mazda 3's, who's tails have no red (OEM) in them until illuminated. Doesn't make sense how that is considered legal and tinted aren't (even when visible from 1,000ft).

Either way I'm putting them back on...it's just an inconvenience. Wasn't sure if anyone else had a similar encounter.

RMS10

I would read the law myself, you can find it on the net. I won't believe a MD state trooper. on another forum a MD trooper pull a fella in a '13 Mustang and gave him a ticket because the tail lights weren't red enough. The trooper was shown the DOT certification but it didn't care, it said tell the judge. I lived in the peoples republic of md in my teenage years and was glad to get away from the local yokel's and the state boys. none of them enforced the laws fairly. They loved to pick on the teenage boys and would let the old geezers and girls off.

conejo172

Factory lights should be legal no matter which state you live in! The guy who got a ticket from a MD state trooper should take that to court to embarrass the trooper for his foolish mistake and lack of knowledge of the model.

That said the person with the 13 probably commited another infraction to get pulled over such as texting while driving, failure to signal intent or above speed limit. The tails were probably a tack on offense!

JimmyM

Then every 2013 Mustang would be illegal according to his logic.

BKamp613

Here's what I found:

http://mlis.state.md.us/asp/web_statutes.asp?gtr&22-219

§22–204.**
(a)***Except as otherwise provided in this section, after June 1, 1971, every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, and any other vehicle that is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall be equipped with at least 2 tail lamps mounted on the rear, which, when lighted as required in § 22-201.1 of this subtitle, shall emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear.

§22–219.**
(a)***Any vehicle may be equipped with and, when required under the Maryland Vehicle Law, shall be equipped with a stop lamp or lamps on the rear of the vehicle, which:
(1)***Shall display a red or amber light, or any shade of color between red and amber, visible from a distance of not less than 300 feet to the rear in normal sunlight; The trooper said 1,000ft and he didn't measure visible light distance after I was stopped.

300ft (lit during the day/the law) vs 1,000ft red lenses (no lights on/what cop said). 3rd brake light is not tinted. Old pics:




I couldn't find anything about tint except for windows.

I_Call_D.I.B.s

WRT the 2013 Mustang guy, there was a similar story two years back about a Pontiac G8 GT driver who got fined by the MD police because he had the OEM blackout tail lights like the Mazda3 has. Something about the reflectors not being present in the housings (although they are mounted on the rear bumper separately). The judge originally sided with the officer, but eventually dismissed the charges after a state attorney pointed out his Lexus SUV had "Altezza" (chromed housing)-style tail lights.

http://www.g8board.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36658

http://jalopnik.com/5589270/maryland...lights-illegal

http://jalopnik.com/5650920/maryland...-light-charges

This case would be handy info if you get pulled over for a similar reason in a 2013 Mustang in MD, or any other car with OEM, DOT-approved blacked-out/Altezza tail lights.

OP on the other hand might be SOL depending on what the local laws say. I don't know if Raxiom's lights are DOT-approved. I know Honderp boiz around here get fix-it tickets constantly for their fleaBay special tail lights, but only after being pulled over for another reason or when a lamp is out. I never had trouble with the blacked-out tail lights in my old 2007 Mazdaspeed3, and so far I've had no trouble with my 2013 Mustang's, either (well, except for confusing the inspector with the sequential turn signals. "Is it supposed to do that?" lol).

BKamp613

So I swapped the lights and got the repair order signed. I shouldve left the Aeros on to see what this new cop would say, but oh well. I explained the stopping officer stated 1000ft visibility when off and he gave me a puzzled look since that isn't correct. The law states red light 300ft (day), 1000ft (night/fog/etc...).

Aeros are going back on, and I'm printing a copy of the statute to keep in the car.

mph07alloy

Sounds to me like a lazy chicken $hit cop with nothing better to do than harass someone who has a nice car. But on the bright side there must be zero crime where you live if the cops have time to do this kind of BS.