Question regarding "LAMPS and REFLECTORS"

[zulutango]

I bet if he asked a Traffic Member he would have gotten a different reply. Asking a GD Member about traffic is like asking a dentist about a brain operation....and I should know as my wife is a dental nurse.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by wonton1017

The best part is that having an eyelid installed INSIDE of your headlights is perfectly fine. My friend with a BMW E92 made custom gunmetal eyelids inside of his headlights to imitate the new F30/F32 headlights. He told multiple (5+) police officers to look at his headlights and tell him if anything is illegal with it and they all say nope.

That being said, this makes zero sense because if you put it on the OUTSIDE, it is SHIELDING THE HOUSING (which is "illegal" according to the officer). But if you put it on the INSIDE, it is NOT SHIELDING THE HOUSING. But in reality, they are both in the exact same spot except one is on the lens' exterior and the other is on the lens' interior. (millimeters of difference in location)

To be fair, I'd wager that most cops wouldn't normally expect to be looking inside a headlight for modification. I would wager that your friend's modification is no more legal than any others', simply more surreptitious ("less heaty", for those of you who prefer the modern slang). And while we're on the subject, I do believe the modification would be counted as 'obscured', whether it's from the inside or out.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

So with all that is wrong with society and the legal system today, you want to spend time, money and effort to change legislation to permit people to install unauthorized, untested covers over the headlight assembly? Hmmmmmmmm?

How about regulations that aren't so outdated that they force people to clog up courts trying to defend their innocence?

Nah, let's proceed with the status quo as we continue down the path to moving traffic disputes to phone calls with SMV staff rather than in front of an impartial JP.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

How about regulations that aren't so outdated that they force people to clog up courts trying to defend their innocence?

Nah, let's proceed with the status quo as we continue down the path to moving traffic disputes to phone calls with SMV staff rather than in front of an impartial JP.

So how are you going to re-write the legislation? Because no matter how you word it, you still need to limit what people can do so they're not turning their cars into rolling hazards... and no matter how carefully you word it, the people who just want to flaunt the laws will continue to push the boundaries, and clog up the courts trying to defend themselves.

Allow people to put 3mm of "eyelids" on, and the people with a point to prove will go to 4mm, just so they can complain about "the man" trying to put them down.

Same thing with things like front tint - allow 75%, and the clowns will be going to 65% and then complaining, "I don't see the difference, it's only 10%! You can't even tell by looking!"

Doesn't matter where you draw the line in the sand, the jokers are always out there wanting to put a toe over it... then two toes... and if they get away with that, the whole foot. So it becomes easier - and just more efficient and cost-effective - to put up a fence instead.

And then Sebberry can come along and complain that the fence is "violating his rights" to see that line. Or some kind of crazy hippie shit like that.

So tell you what: instead of whining about the laws that are designed to keep everyone safe (perfect or not)... why don't you go after the self-centered assholes who make it necessary to HAVE those laws in the first place? THEY'RE the reason we can't have nice things.