Maryland Judge Declares Pontiac G8 GT's Factory Taillights Illegal; Tells Car Owner To Get A Different Car [Updated: Or Maybe Not...]
from the judge-this dept
Update: As some folks are pointing out in the comments, people digging into this have discovered that the guy did, in fact, modify his taillights to make them look like stock. Some are suggesting it still didn't violate local laws, but it's not as clear cut any more...Went to court for my clear tail lights on my car and was found guilty!Nice to know that the officer and the judge seem to know better than everyone else, including the Department of Transportation...
The judge actualy told me she didn't care what the manufacturer said, what the federal govt said, what the DOT # stamped onto my taillights said if the officer says my lights aren't legal then they're not legal. I took the G8 sales brochure in along with pics of my car and other G8 GT's and the VIN trace by 3 different dealers saying my lights were factory none of it mattered she found me guilty of failing to display or reflect red light on the rear of the car. Didn't matter the reflecters were in the bumper, didn't matter where the light is has that little red circle, the whole lens isn't red so they're not legal. Also where the back-up and turn signals are should be the reflectors according to the cop so the V6 cars lights aren't legal either.
Judge stupid went on to tell me that maybe I should consider trading in or selling the car since its not legal in MD and that I'm going to continue to get the $60 tickets till I get rid of the car.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: g8, maryland, taillights
Companies: pontiac
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
More details...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More details...
Updated the post. Thanks for passing on the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More details...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another case of...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modified lights
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/12/2010/07/6a1f814de862a3a8d091f609140adae2 /340x.jpg
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3235/4061/33087030160_medium.jpg
It appears that the stock lenses were modified in at least a couple of ways and really couldn't be considered "stock" any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modified lights
Thanks! I updated the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS
In his new thread, the modifications that he mentions are all changes from chrome to black. From that, one cannot conclude that he deserved the ticket. In fact, by covering the chrome and preventing a white reflection from being shown from the rear, it might be argued that his modification was more in spirit of the law than the original design.
The right move is to appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS
The fact that he deleted his original thread makes the whole thing suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS
Interesting point. New update reflects that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE CHECK YOUR FACTS
You mean that shiny, chrome part called the "reflector"? What ever could be wrong with blacking *that* out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice to know that the author of an article on techdirt isn't required to do any research before publishing. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, us and a few others, but that's why we have comments. :) I've updated the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha!
The DOT approval stamp on the Lense is for FENDERAL approval, not STATE approval...
But like most things on Techdirt, little mikee never gets the entire story, only the parts that furthers his agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
If the guy can spend the money to get the parts, and if it's not a HUGE deal, I don't see the risk.
I'd like to see what happens to this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ha!
Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ha!
Yeah, that would be like if, say, California had special emissions requirements or something. Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(for those not from Australia the Pontiac G8 is actually a VE Commodore that's made in Australia, and sold under the Pontiac name)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, that makes the story more interesting, but it's one guy's word vs. his current taillights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOT doesn't matter
Yes it sucks, and yes it's a pain in the ass, but if the taillights do not comply with MD law then he deserved the ticket. Of course I don't see that anybody has looked up the applicable MD law, so the rest is just speculation.
It would probably be far more practical to color the taillights red than to buy a new car. I would think he would also have some recourse against the dealer, assuming he bought it in MD. If he bought it out of state and brought it in, it's all on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOT doesn't matter
I will, like you, assume that these are unmodified taillights. DOT approval is at BOTH the federal and state level. For example, California has stricter smog laws than most of the remainder of the country.
The way this particular part of our legal system works is the entity defined by law (the DOT) gives approval for what is and what is not legal. The police enforce the law - they do not make it. The judge deferring to the police officer "if the officer says my lights aren't legal then they're not legal" is crazy. The police are not there to create or interpret the law - they are an enforcement agency.
In this case, the role of the judge should have been to look at the DOT stamp, verify that the taillights were DOT approved and unmodified, and tell the police officer that these were approved by the proper agency and he is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DOT doesn't matter
"I told the judge the car now has 100% FACTORY lights in it and she said she didn't care, that the officer says the clear lens's are illegal so they are illegal and I'll continue to get stopped, be ticketed and she'll continue to fine me for running the stock lights the car came with"
Now, if that is true, it should be very disconcerting for anyone with a Pontiac G8 driving through the state (even if you do not live there).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOT doesn't matter
22-209. (b) REAR LAMPS - Rear clearance lamps, identification lamps, and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of the vehicle shall display or reflect a red color. (An. Code 1957,art 66 1/2 ss12-209; 1977 ch.14 ss 2.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DOT doesn't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wahhhhh!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find interesting in this discussion is the feeling I get from reading the posts that people think it is OK for a state to have it's own laws about taillights even if they conflict with federal standards. ¿Are these the same people that feel that Arizona cannot have it's own immigration laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I guess the moral of the story is, if you dont want to fund police pensions by getting tickets for ridiculous "infractions" like tail lights or "overly tinted windows" then you should move to a state that doesn't have a steel rod rammed up its collective @$$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not stock. Since ya'lls reading comprehension is teh fail, maybe pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No reading comprehension fail. Lots of sites got the original story wrong, and we've now updated based on this. This is what the comments are for... so thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy pretty much fell into the same boat. His taillights are legal as long as he doesn't modify them. Once he modifies them, he has to follow what the state says, even if his modification do not change the overall brightness or reflectivity of the lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modified or Not?
Well, were the taillights modified? If so, they can be deemed illegal. However, I have heard of the same thing happening to others with DOT approved factory assemblies. My brother's 1972 GTO was deemed to have fog lights that were too low and the police officer ticketed him. They were absolutely stock. It would seem that sometimes the police just make stuff up to justify the stop.
The judge would have no idea what is legal or illegal. They usually just go with whatever the officer says in traffic court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modified or Not?
If I were to choose exactly one qualification for the position of "judge", it would be the knowledge of -- or ability to look up -- pertinent laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fenders must extend half way down the height of the tire, front and back. So anything where the fenders/mudflaps/rockers end higher than the center of the hub fails. Many stock off the lot trucks technically fail.
Any exhaust system that makes the car louder than OEM - fail. So its illegal for Pepboys to sell one of those coffee cans if its going on something with a license plate.
I know it was drafted, not sure if it was approved, but there was one in motion that you must replace tires with those equal or better in speed rating than the factory rubber. Buy a corvette with 200 mph Z rated shoes? Congrats, youre paying 300+ per tire even if you never go over 65.
But hey, a hardwood 4x4 still passes for a bumper. No joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Law Vs. Federal
I watched a report a while ago from a local news station that Hummer's are in essence illegal in florida due to there width. They exceed the state law requirements by an inch and a half or so. So owners could be ticketed. Judges could recommend to buy a new one; and cops can write tickets. Its conflicts like these that happen when you have federal, state, city, county and even legally enforceable HOA's laws that each try's to cover every aspect of your life. there tends to be overlaps and conflicts in them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulations...
Considering what police cost (salary, insurance, pension, etc.), one has to ask if Maryland doesn't have way too many if they have enough time to pull over and ticket for this. Add in court costs, infrastructure, and so on and it is "nice" to see Maryland is spending the private sector's money "so well".
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is nice to know, officer and judge know better :)
Yes, it is !!!
Its nice to know the authorities, just dont assume you are not breaking the law because the rules say you are not.
So yes, it is nice to know the officer and judge know better than everyone else. After all its their job.
This also goes to show that even if you "own" something, you do not have the right to do with it what you like.
That applies to cars or copyright, you might own the physical car, or song, but you dont own the copyright or the design of the car. That is not yours, and not yours to tamper with.
Yeah, people should be able to put whatever kind of lights they want on their cars.
Um, no they should not, these are rules in place for a reason, lights that are too big can distract someone behind you, or too small and you cannot see them in bad conditions.
If you follow your logic, you should be able to put any engine, brakes, tyres on your car.
But you know that is stupid, and you cannot do it for simple reasons, you will damage yourself, or someone else.
Use a bit of common sense.
Also, if it was the case that the law rejected a stock standard car, the owner of that car would have recourse to the car manufacturer and would be able to get his money back at least.
Plus, the car company would not be allowed to sell an unroadworthy car at all. So with 2 second thinking, and 3 seconds of research and fact checking would have saved you some embarrasment.
Didnt you think this story was a bit "sus" from the start ?
Are your readers better at fact checking than yourself ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is nice to know, officer and judge know better :)
Yes it is. Provided your car still meets the vehicle code, you can paint it pink with purple polka dots if you want, and it's nobody's damn business.
"If you follow your logic, you should be able to put any engine, brakes, tyres on your car."
Same thing. If your car is smog exempt (of you live in a state without emissions testing), then you CAN put any kind of engine you want in your car. Same with brakes and "tyres." If it passes a safety inspection, you're in the clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is nice to know, officer and judge know better :)
Um. Yes. That's the whole idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.
So as long as you comply with the existing laws and statutes, you can do what you like.
Sounds just like everything we humans do !!.
But if you dont comply with the existing laws and rules, then you are breaking the law, and officers and judges will rightfully charge you..
You cant "do what you like" you cannot put bike wheels or plastic brake pads on your car, as you said, you have to comply with the laws and rules.
So you cant paint your car any color you like, you could not for example paint it in the same colors as the police or ambulance, or a taxi.
You cannot put any engine, or brakes on because you do not comply with the law.
You cannot download and upload copyrighted files, because the law says you cannot.
The law says you cannot do alot of things with your "own" property. They even have the right to take away from you that property if you cannot be trusted with it.
So this is a non-case, yes he modified his own property, but he did so in a way that did not meet the laws set out, so he was chanrged for it.
Exactly what should happen..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.
The entire gist of the story is that his taillights DID comply with Maryland law.
"So you cant paint your car any color you like, you could not for example paint it in the same colors as the police or ambulance, or a taxi."
Yes, actually you can. You can't utilize the markings, signs, and livery of what departments currently utilize, but you can make a car a reasonable facsimile. How else do you think collectors can own restored vintage police cars, ambulances, etc.?
"You cannot put any engine, or brakes on because you do not comply with the law."
Once again, it depends on the law. If your car is smog exempt, you can indeed put any engine you want in it, provided it doesn't run on nuclear power or human blood or something. Ask the owner of the infamous truck diesel-powered Corvette about that.
Brakes: If it passes safety inspection, you can modify that as well. Google "aftermarket brake kits" and see what you come up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.
Um, no. The guy started out claiming that they were "stock", but it then came out that they apparently were not. He had modified them, and once you do that they're no longer DOT approved and street legal. Now he claims that his modifications shouldn't matter, but that's not for him to decide. Of course, I suppose he could have gone through the expense and trouble of having his modified design tested and approved (if it passed), but he didn't. (And I bet it would be really expensive)
So, yes, you can modify your taillights just about how ever you want. Just don't take it out on the public roads after you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: vehicle code means abiding by the law, so if you keep within the law yes you can, if not no you cant.
He only painted some chrome bits black and painted a small amount of the upper lens body color. It still functions as stock, and it was still approved during inspection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If its not the truth, dont post. if you want a 'good' reputation, and not one for false statements.
Um. Yes. That's the whole idea.
then maybe you should quit doing "Detailed analysis" then, if that is the case, and what is your purpose here then anyway ?
If it is not to provide checked facts and real information, what is it you do again ?
Do we have to read what you say, with the assumption that it is wrong ? and it needs to be checked for honesty or accuracy ?
You should start with the truth, and take it from that point, there should be no reason to check your work, you should just be honest in the first place, and responsible enough to check facts before posting.
If no one checked what you said was a lie, then at some point in the future you would refer back to it as fact. and perpetuate the lie.
Wrong information is far more damaging than no information at all. that means you are better off saying nothing, than not saying the truth, or checking your stories as truthfull.
especially if you intend to refer to them in the future, which you regularly do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If its not the truth, dont post. if you want a 'good' reputation, and not one for false statements.
NO YOU DON'T SO TAKE A LONG WALK OFF OF A SHORT PIER
and take your hissie fits with you... little girl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My tail lights
Regardless of this FACT the "parts I painted black" inside the tail lights were the chrome ring that surrounds the red tail light cicle, nothing else was painted and no where does anythning say that ring must be chrome. You may now step down from your high horse as you have no idea WTF your talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]