Tinted Lights

[TRDWGN]

:lol:

I remember seeing your car on here before and i was thinking WTF, how does he get a Wof.....

When i bought the car I was the 1st nz owner and it was freshly vinned, at the time i thought it must be aftermarket lights because it was obviously not painted and the vinning guys had tried to scratch them and obviously found them not painted and they let plenty of light through so i assume they considered them safe enough for the road, the last wof they asked no questions and happily passed it so yeah i'm happy!!!

If it was going to make my car unsafe is less likely to be seen then i would have taken them off a long time ago, but yeah no issues yet!!

[BlakJak]

viewtopic.php?p=457608#457608

...

[TRDWGN]

http://forums.toyspeed.org.nz/viewtopic.php?p=457608#457608

...

Is this a recent amendment? FWIW I sold my car last month with a fresh testing station warrant, absolutely no issues with my rear covers

[BlakJak]

The link states at the top:

Disclaimer
The following information is provided as a guide only. For more detailed information on vehicle lighting generally, please refer to Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Lighting 2004 and Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 at www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/

So its at least a year old.

If people are issuing you a WOF and you have specifically asked them about it and been passed anyway, and a second opinion agrees, then it'll only be an issue should the modification cause an accident i'd say.

All I can do is use the references available to me (ala the ltsa website and the vehicle lighting rules, etc) and make a call based on those, thus, your guess as good as mine.

[BlakJak]

Oh and the other thing is, when you're knowingly in breach of the spirit of the law, you're asking for trouble IMHO. Whether or not youre technically legal, one just has to look beyond that to the basics - the lights are designed to meet a certain spec by the manufacturer, and are a safety feature - ... id rather leave the safety stuff alone thank you.

[Mr.Phreak]

And as usual, alot of it comes down to the discretion of the testing officer, police officer and insurance assessor

[TRDWGN]

Oh and the other thing is, when you're knowingly in breach of the spirit of the law, you're asking for trouble IMHO. Whether or not youre technically legal, one just has to look beyond that to the basics - the lights are designed to meet a certain spec by the manufacturer, and are a safety feature - ... id rather leave the safety stuff alone thank you.

Raises an interesting issue, joe bloggs buys a fresh import off a yard, comes fitted with 'aftermarket' acessories such as suspension, light covers etc joe could and should be able to assume he is not in any infringement of any laws, afterall he has a freshly complied car with a fresh wof surely this would/should consititute a acceptable level of safety? Surely a compliance centre has a higher degree of accuracy on such issues than a joe bloggs mate's interpretation of an old web based finding? I say leave the safety stuff to the professionals

[BlakJak]

If I walk up to a car yard and buy a car, i'm going to decide for myself whether i'm comfortable driving it, based on safety.

If it looked to me like the tail lights werent going to be bright enough in low-viz conditions due to a filter fitted to them, i'd take the damn thing off - legal or not.

'Dodgy WOFs' have existed for as long as the concept of a WOF itself, if you buy a car and put it on the road you are taking responsibility - to a reasonable degree - for your safety in that vehicle. At least, for aspects which are easily visible - Condition of lights, tyres, effectiveness of brakes, visibility through windows, etc etc etc.

The intent of the law is to preserve the safety measures put in place by car manufacturers, not necessarily to prevent modification - but if you have something other than 'factory' you are responsible for it.

[TRDWGN]

if you have something other than 'factory' you are responsible for it.

So to buy a car you must have an intricate knowledge of the particular vehicle in question? Sounds a bit harsh! I think it would be safe to say a lot of the japanese imports rolling around our roads have at least one item that is non factory fitted, what about the little old lady that buys a 'sporty little MR2 because it looks good in red is she expected to know it has aftermarket suspension or lights etc fitted? no she relies on the correct people ensuring it is deemed safe to drive on the road.

I assume and hope you took that dangerous nudge bar off your caldina as that serverely alters the frontal impact characteristics of your car

FWIW with my rear covers, i had owned the car for a few months before i realised they were in fact only covers, i assumed they were replacement lens for the reason that they did not seem to alter the amount of light when compared to the standard fitment lens there was little or no performance difference only a cosmetic difference.. Now don't get me wrong i am against the stocking or painted lens so commonly seen, but i think you views are just a tad narrow and over compassing on this matter...

[Alex B]

Mountain out of molehill

[BlakJak]

Agreed!

TRDWGN: Fairly certain my nudge bar is 'factory' and as such the car was designed and certified with it installed...

My view isnt as 'narrow' as youre making out, you've taken the extremist view on it I think. Obviously the things that joe-public can't obviously see are something that a Compliance agent or WOF agent should be inspecting; this is the whole point of a WOF after all.

But if its something you can obviously see that is potentially dangerous, and you do nothing about it - thats clearly your problem, right?

This conversation started as relates to Tinted light lenses, these are something that should be fairly obvious even to the uninitiated. Assuming that people even bother to look. (And the number of people who are oblivious to failed brake/tail lights for weeks or more at a time... well... 'nuff said!)