yes some are made without...but if you car came with them then it has to keep them..and has to be teh same color that came from the factory.

 

they are part of the parking light system, which is required (as far as i know) to be fully functional (at least here)

 

Where I'm at, I don't have to pass a safety inspection or emission requirements.

 

Anything is subject to interpretation in a court of law........I've got friends that have overturned tons of stuff in court. Just because it's "the law" doesn't mean everyone reads it the same.

 

if thats the way you and your friends feel they want to conduct themselves, then good for you(s).

i dont see how laws can be interpreted differently. law is law. if it defines something as illegal, its illegal. if you want to fight it and win, then please see my above statement.

 

OK - This vehicle code is pretty confusing.
Here are some pics I took off of car manufacturers websites.
All these cars have NO SIDE MARKERS. They DO HAVE amber bulbs or an amber piece in the headlight area as the TURN SIGNAL MARKER, just like we have in the 8. Our cars have a turn signal bulb in the headlight assembly.

Also, I referenced this site before, in a discussion about clear corners being legal. According to the CHP website the comment about the the side markers is this:
"Illegal color of side marker lights. If present, must be yellow in the front and red in the rear (25106, 24003 VC). "
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/streetlegal.html

It says "side marker lights". It doesn't say the reflector has to be yellow/red. Also, it says "if present" which means it's not a requirement. Doesn't say anything about date the car was manufactured.

However, in the comment about brake lights, it does mention manufactured date.
"Illegal brake lights. Brake lights on vehicles newer than 1979 must be red (24603 VC). (Vehicles older than 1979 may be red or yellow.) "

Here's the picture of several cars w/o side markers. (Toyota, Ford, Honda, Nissan)
Notice the silver Altima on the right. You can hardly even tell there is an amber bulb in the headlight assembly.

I kind of want to go to a CHP office and ask them, but I'll take my wifes car. Otherwise, I'll get a ticket for my illegally tinted windows. :o

- Cesar -

 

For example, our AK Code states that you cannot modify your exhaust system to be less efficient than what it is stock. That's clearly open to interpretation. I don't know how you can see black and white on such laws, but out in the real world, we big boys contest tickets we don't think we should pay.

 

They may not have seperate side markers like the 8 does but they all do have side markers built into the front headlight and taillight housings that can be seen easily from the side(much like the rear of the 8). The Altima picture doesn't show a good side angle so their not as visable in the picture you posted.

Not sure about Canada but what I posted on page 2 is from the FMVSS which states all vehicles manufactured after 1969 must have side marker lights and reflectors. The fact that you may not see them on all vehicles in the US means nothing. Some drivers may have modified them or it could be that the bulbs have burned out. But the reflectors are still usable. They are required by law in the US. Not to mention it's a safety issue. If you get t-boned with blacked-out side markers or any other required equipment your insurance company can hold compensation from you for not following these FMVSS guidelines and altering safety equipment. Now wouldn't that suck.

 

cesar, not all those cars would be more than 80 inches wide (just wondering, since thats the law someone quoted earlier) if they arent, then they dont need them?

AKBen, theres not reason to start throwing childish insults out.

you quote the law about the exhaust. how is that open to interpretation? it states that it cant be less efficient than stock. ok, so if your stock exhaust emits 'x' amount of pollutants into the air, and you replace it with a new exhaust system that emits 'x+1' amount of pollutants into the air, technically, its illegal. if you get charged/ticketed for it, you have broken the law. and as i said before, if you and your friends want to fight stuff like that in court, good for you(s).

maybe it is stupid, and in some situations, i do agree. but when it comes to safety, in my opinion, there is no 'grey area'.

 

The 80 inches rule went into effect Jan. 1, 1968 for trucks,buses etc. and Jan. 1, 1969 for all others vehicles.

 

Law enforcement officers saturate the general populace with tickets knowing full well that only a small percentage will contest. The pacifists roll over and play dead; those of us with some self-respect contest when we believe it's not just.

 

i got pulled over 3 times already, they didn't mentioned a word about my corner lights, all they care is the front plate

 

I think it looks good.

 

i like your side markers...are they spray tinted? details? i like the hood.

 

i'm sorry to say it...but this is a true statement


i like the fact that you tried to black the side markers out...but next time, try spray tint...cuz i dont see the point of painting them til you can see thru it.

 

4 year old thread buddy

 

Being that I have this same exact thing done to my car, and have had police look directly at my car looking for things to write up on it, and did NOT give me anything about having it black, I will tend to agree with original poster. If you are driving in a manner as to attract alot of attention, you deserve the ticket. If you go further and **** the cop off enough that hes gonna nitpick to that degree, then you deserve every penny he writes you up for. But I garantee it isn't because of the side marker. It is because you were an *******, and hes gonna screw with you. That last bit was actually a quote from a cop when I asked about tinting my rears