Date:         Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:29:58 EDT
Reply-To:     JordanVw@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         JordanVw@AOL.COM
Subject:      Re: vanagon smoked or clear rear sidemarkers...any interest?
Comments: To: spielmobil@SNUTTIG.NET
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

In a message dated 6/11/03 9:58:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
spielmobil@SNUTTIG.NET writes:


> Isn't it a DOT requirement to have a red reflector built in your rear
> sidemarker? Same as an orange reflector in your front sidemarker? It's not
> enuff that it's red or orange when on. I don't think those smoked or clear
> lenses are legal in the US. Other than Europe where there is no such
> requirement.
>
>
>

the smoked front SA front turn signals dont have a reflector in them, as well
as my spray tinted rear sidemarkers, and the MTS smoked taiilights  - which
have a reflector in them, but its clear, not red.  my van passed PA state
instpection last month with all these installed, so apparently theyre legal. around
here people get magnetized reflectors, stick them on during instection, and
then remove them after they get the sticker on the windshield. lots of cars had
the smoked lenses standard from the factory such as the '96-'99 jetta/golf
GTI/GLX, even cars like chevy beretta, etc w/ stock smoked taillights fromt he
factory.    the PA state inspection system is so corrupt, every shop is
different, its up to the individual shop owner to make the decision. thats why many
other states like GA, canned the manditory vehicle inspections, because it was
a scam for the shops to make more money.
if you want to really get technical, all H4 headlights are not legal either.
in order to be completely "legal" your headlight lenses must say DOT.  which
as we all know, the '86-91 DOT vanagon headlamps suck, and are downright
dangerous, but they are "legal". of course youd rather be legal than see where
you're going at night, right?
chris