[9accord6]

got pulled over on mon. night by CHP...got 3 FIX IT TICKETS!
1. no current registration slip in the car (my fault)
2. blue corner ligts in front (reasonable)
3. "modified tail laps" -- according to offisa Boskovich...what a punk (now this one if f***ed up!) i think this guy is full of shit!

since when are altezzas illegal....they are all around red...

also every honda dealership carries them...

i think i might try fight this one back ...just for the hell of it...cuz it sux

what do you guys think? are altezzas street legal? are they DOT approved ...maybe that what means to be legal????

have you ever gotten a ticket for mods on your car???

THX

 

[accordsibling]

they are legal if they are DOT approved, if they say for show only, they are illegal.

 

[degrace26]

What kid did u buy? Most are legal, but really depends wich company makes them. It should say in the packaging.

 

[hondaboy95]

A majority of the taillights are DOT approved and 50 state legal. It would be hard to get this dismissed in court because unless you have a certificate or some legal document stating the DOT approval, the court does not want to dismiss the ticket. Believe me, I've tried.

Don't feel bad about the ticket. I got one for my AEM intake and Greddy Exhaust, both of which are 50 state legal. I tried to fight it (the key word is TRIED) but still had to pay the bail amount. The court does not want to loose this money! Think about it...I provided documentation to prove the legality of both components and still had no luck. I'm not discouraging you, but warning you! The courts like the money and will do anything to keep from dismissing the ticket.

 

[-=NgR=-]

if u can find papers saying that it is legal..then id say go for it...its worth a shot!

 

[gob_2k]

go to court and fight it. lates

 

[UltraMagneticAL]

i got pulled for modified exhaust and loud music, as luck would have it, i didn't have my insurance papers in the car either...
went to court the day bail was due to show them insurance papers...that reduced the amount of bail considerably (almost $600) i only had to pay $75 for the other two. anyways, i chose to fight it. I went back on the court date and the cop didn't show...so i got my money back.

Also, in your case, i think the only thing they could get you for is the blue lights in the front if your tail lamps are certified by DOT. another case you could bring up is that if your tail lamps are illegal, then how come the Lexus comes with those type of lights from the factory?

I say go fight it, most cops don't know shit about cars and they won't show. As for me, i have to go fight a speeding and tailgating ticket that i got during traffic...how the hell does that happen?

 

[WhiteAccord2k1]

another case you could bring up is that if your tail lamps are illegal, then how come the Lexus comes with those type of lights from the factory?

Lexus has a red sidemarker near the tails which make them legal. Aftermarket altezzas are illegal.

 

[9accord6]

yeah im definitely getting rid of blue corners but refuse to take off altezzas...i think its all bullshit
im not sure if mine are DOT approved...they are the 3rd generation and i got them from autodynamic.com....aslo im not sure who manufactures them
yeah cops are punks....i think he pulled me over for blue corners at first but than decided to spoil my day even more...what a moron
i will probably put my stock lights back on (luckily i still have them) and than put altezzas back on after i get that ticket fixed

i cant believe you can get cited for intake and exhaust....how the hell did he know you had intake...did he search your car...can they even look under the hood? and greddy is not unreasonable loud...man i hate cops

 

[davie]

haha! don't sweat it, thats what happens when you fix up you car.

wellz... it's a hassle fighting it in court. im still contesting a "speed contest" ticket i received since december. i had to go in 3 different times to tell them i wasn't guilty...idiots.

REMEMBER! tell them you want to speak to the judge.

blue lights- illegal
altezzas- i dunno, bring paper work stating it is legal
registration- show them the car is registered & the judge (9 out of 10 times) will drop the charge.

 

[v4lu3s]

DOT approval does NOT equal street legal. they could have been made with DOT apprvoed materials and that got them the DOT approval. Basically for a tail light to be legal it MUST be DOT approved, meeting the same specs of the origial tail light.
the comment made earlier about the side marker is probably why yours were deemed illegal. ALL cars that came from the factory such as the rx300 and is300 have a red reflector/sidemarker. If your car already has such a sidemarker/reflector, then you should be in the clear. but if your car had taillights that wrapped around the rear corner of the car, with the side reflectors built into the taillight lenses thenim sorry to say, your taillights are illegal.

 

[AcCoRdSiR98]

a month ago i got a ticket for my blue bulbs in the front but lucky it was only a 10 dollar fix-it ticket

 

[9accord6]

hey im confused now...what side marker in the back are you talking about...
there is a built in reflector in the altezzas and i have a red sidemarker on the rear bumper they are right past the rear wheel...also my OEM tail lights did not have any reflector at all...so i dont see how OEM is better or safer than what i have right now....??? thx

 

[9accord6]

this is what i have in front with blue bulbs...and i understand it has to GO...

and this is what i have in the back...and the rightmost circle is half reflector...

 

[v4lu3s]

on the bumper....between the rear corner of you car and the rear wheel well...thats where the side reflector would nomally be.
you may want to go to the library or find the exact law you are supposedly in violation of to see what it sepcifically says about tail lights.

 

[9accord6]

to clarify...this is what i have...except i have altezzas in place of OEM...and you can see on the bumper on the side ...there is a red marker...it is not a reflector type thought...it lights up only when my lights are on...

what do you think? thx

 

[v4lu3s]

looks like it should be legal.....BUT courts are dicks when it comes to that stuff...there might be something in the specific wording of the law that can help...i dunno

 

[UltraMagneticAL]

i checked my CaliVehicleCode book and, well this is really loose wording, but it says that the tail lamps need the red reflectors inside. if the court won't let u prove it, isn't that kinda messed up? i mean, there should be some sorta law that says you have the right to defend yourself w/ evidence????

 

[9accord6]

here is the section that f***ed me up:
"24003 v.c. (blue lights on front)" and
"26101 v.c. (modified tail lamps)"
exactly as it appears on my ticket...
can anyone check these??? thx

 

[v4lu3s]

to beat this you will need lab test data to win... good luck
i got this from www.findlaw.com

26101. No person shall sell or offer for sale for use upon or as
part of the equipment of a vehicle, nor shall any person use upon a vehicle, any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104. This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935, or to lamps installed on authorized emergency vehicles.


26104. (a) Every manufacturer who sells, offers for sale, or
manufactures for use upon a vehicle devices subject to requirements established by the department shall, before the device is offered for sale, have laboratory test data showing compliance with such requirements. Tests may be conducted by the manufacturer.
(b) The department may at any time request from the manufacturer a copy of the test data showing proof of compliance of any device with the requirements established by the department and additional evidence that due care was exercised in maintaining compliance during production. If the manufacturer fails to provide such proof of compliance within 30 days of notice from the department, the department may prohibit the sale of the device in this state until acceptable proof of compliance is received by the department.