my dmv failed me for no side marker lights
 

i knew i was in trouble when the guy was staring and said hey is that a camaro then grabbed a book and started thumbing thrue the pages.he goes over talks to guy in next lane and comes back and says yeah anything after 67 should have side markers.i asked him for a break but he said no way.i had the side markers removed before it was painted.any ideas for a scab up to get me thrue dmv?i was thinking of mabey just taping some bike reflectors on the sides and trying another branch of dmv.any other ideas out there for me.

Just go to a different branch -- that guy was obviously a dickhead.

What Greg said. But if that fails, try a registration expert. I used one to register my car since it had a NV title (I'm in CA) and hadn't been registered in 10ish years. Figuring all of the fees out was complicated. I think it cost $250 including his commission, which was not only way less than expected, but saved me a trip to the DMV, which well worth it, in my opinion.

Matt

i thought sidemarkers were introduced in 1968

I agree, and just so you won't waste time running around to another branch stick on some bike reflectors.

If it's just "markers", I'd go with the same suggestion!
F-him and the DMV!
Bike reflectors and move on.

"If" they have to have DOT numbers, grab a pair off fleabay, CL or a pickapart, throw some two sided, removable tape on them, and slap them on.

I hate when people do their jobs. :D

What state are you in? Because I want to shave off the marker lights on the quarter panels of my 72 Chevelle. Didn't think they would matter that much and I had no idea of when the started using marker lights either.

I would ask for the state regulation that says they have to be there. Most of these guys think they know them, it has been my experience they do not know crap. Just like the average TSA screener!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and 67 did not have them on all cars, Mopar did not start using them until 68.

If memory serves, it was a Federal regulation, not State. If the Fed's mandate it, the States follow suit.

every car had to have them in 68. Luckly for me my 67 doesnt have them but if it did I would have taken it to a shop that would have passed me. A $10 tip goes a long way

Install small LED lights on the ends of the front and rear bumpers in the right colors. I did this on my old 67 and it looked pretty good.

Either that or try another DMV that isn't as picky.

Food for thought...

If you remove the marker lights on a car that is supposed to have them. If say...somebody runs into you at night from the side and they say they didn't see you...Can the insurance co decline coverage because you removed the lights ? Will the other guys insurance co come after you based on you removing required safety devices ? I'm guessing yes. If your car had them i would leave them.

In NJ the DMV stations are all computerized. Once you fail, it is entered into the "system". Going to another station is a waste of time as they will only enter your VIN to find out when, where and what you failed for. Even if you go as if its your first time, they start off with entering the VIN. It would red flag right away that you've already attempted to go thru elsewhere.
Tough one.... I dont have anything to offer.....at least nothing thats legal.

I say CHEAT... Mount / inspect / Remove...

http://www.iboats.com/Rectangular-Re...-view_id.40554

It's possible.
I mean anything is possible in civil court; but, with everything else taken into consideration, the marker lights won't make a nickels worth of difference in the outcome of the case.

We did a tractor trailer case a while back where a motorcycliste drove under a trailer at night, decapitating the driver.

Of course the plaintiff's counsel was trying to make a huge deal of the markings and lights on truck.
Yes, there were a couple of side markers missing and one piece of retro-reflective tape gone.

Then again, if you can't see a BMF tractor trailer in front of you sideways......that's what the jury thought as well:rofl:

In Ma. They checked my rear wiper to make sure it was working. I've never used it because I hate when I see a Tahoe with the rear window scratched from the wiper. Even though it was an option if its there it needs to work. Which is bull if you ask me. You don't even need a back window, it can be solid like panel van doors.
I bet they would check for markers here in Ma. if you got a gun hoe guy.

Some states don't require state run inspection for cars registered as antiques. I would look into that as well.

Your right Ron in Maryland you just send in for the plates. Nice!

I'm in Delaware and you have to go through the inspection lanes. A friend of mine told me he took his car through the inpection lanes with side marker lights, drivers side mirror and fake door handles taped to his car! It was hot and by the time he got into the building he had to keep his hand on the outside mirror because the double side tape was starting to give up the ghost!!!

thanks for all the input.
this coming from a guy with a car with a plane engine in it is funny/lol
Food for thought...

If you remove the marker lights on a car that is supposed to have them. If say...somebody runs into you at night from the side and they say they didn't see you...Can the insurance co decline coverage because you removed the lights ? Will the other guys insurance co come after you based on you removing required safety devices ? I'm guessing yes. If your car had them i would leave them.
__________________

ahhh but my car has all it's lights, horn wipers etc.

As for a jury in the case of a couple marker lights missing...Were they removed on purpose like on this Camaro we are talking about ? The marker lights were federally mandated for safety. If you purposely remove them is different that just having a couple broken. In fact if I'm your insurance company I probably have a basis for denial of coverage. I'm not a attorney or Insurance Co but I think I've been around enough to know how they think. Not worth all the headache in my opinion. And if I sell my Camaro that I removed the marker lights from and the next guy gets killed by someone that hits him broadside at night I will bet somebody comes after me because of no side marker lights. The guy getting killed might not have been because of the lights being removed but a attorney will love chasing you for money and you will hate paying another attorney to defend you. Keeps the attorneys happy though.

can someone tell me a situation where you could get broadsided at night and it not be your fault to begin with? im being serious. i cant think of a situation. and then to not be able to see the headlights?

if i was a defense lawyer i would just snap some pics of the car sideways with the headlights on. its pretty obvious even without side markers. semi's are different though. an unmarked 50' long trailer can be dangerous.

Maybe someone else runs a stoplight or stop sign and you have the right of way and you get t-boned?

After driving a car for 5500 miles without side markers, I feel the biggest concern is being in a cars blindspot on the freeway in low light.

Bad Deal
 

Sounds like a bunch of non sense.I did buy a set of 67 quarters that i had to cut the marker lights in for my 68 camaro.Good luck with your next attempt!

The answer is "maybe."
It depends on the facts of the crash, the insurance company itself and it's tenacity to save a buck, and a ton of other factors to include how much of a factor the side marker lights played in the causation of the crash.
There may be some loss mitigation, but to deny coverage, not likely.
But there's no blanket answer to your question.

I'm around these types daily.

No insurance company adjuster is going to try to deny coverage based solely on marker lights, unless they are the proximate cause of the crash.
Again, if all the other lights are functional, it's going to be difficult to convince anyone that you couldn't see, and subsequently struck, this full sized car because it didn't have a 4-6" marker light on the fender:lol:

In the case of the semi, it was more years of neglect than an intentional act, but it still fits the bill for this discussion.
Some had been broken, or fallen off, tape had been scraped off, and overall the trailer was a real POS.

Then again, it's still a BMF aluminum trailer, attached to a BMF white (in this case) Peterbuilt (IIRC), and I'd venture to say, at least 85-90%+ of it's lights and safety gear was present and functional.
If you can't see all that, the tape and lights aren't going to make much difference:rofl:
It was really more of an example of a desperate attorney grasping for straws:(
Federal mandates are great, and if you can prove that the lack of mandated safety equipment was again, the proximate cause of the accident, then you may have something.
In cases like this, doing so is going to be a hugely difficult task.
If anything, an insurance company may use the information in loss mitigation negotiations.
Overall, federal and state mandates are more $$$ makers for DOT and the like since they're enforceable and subsequently fineable.

Another thing that you have to remember, is most attorney's are MONEY driven.
If there's no money to chase, there's no payday for them in the end, most private attorney's won't touch the case.


Sure, plenty.
-DUI drivers
-Someone else failing to stop at a sign or light
-Someone making a left turn, etc.

Worked all of these on numerous occasions.

:lol:
Sorry man, don't mean to chuckle, and I realize you're serious, but it's just not that simple.

We'll assume of course that the crash occurred at night, and you're the striking vehicle, striking mine with no side markers, and that one of us failed to yield the right of way to the other.
Here's some questions to be answered:

1) Were YOUR headlights operational?
2) What is the distance they project?
3) Were my headlights on? (this pertains to your side view picture suggestion):thumbsup:
4) What was the roadway condition? Straight line? Curve? Incline/decline?
5) What were the weather conditions? Fog? Rain? Haze? Full moon?
6) What was the street lighting? Type? Halogen? Old school bulb? None?
7) What color was the car?
8) Had you been drinking? Were you fatigued?
9) Were you otherwise distracted by a Phone, text, laptop, conversation, roadhead:rofl: :rofl: (ok, had to throw that one in there:rofl: :rofl: )

These are just a few things that have to be considered.
With the exception of heavy haze/fog/rain, and that does have to be considered and may make a difference with the markers, there's just not much there that markers can resolve.

If I failed to yield, the side markers are a moot issue.
If you failed to yield, again, the side markers are likely to become a moot or very minimal issue.

I agree 100% there. This one was not unmarked, just not properly marked.
The plaintiff's counsel tried to use DOT regs to make his dumbass client look good:faint:


Would I keep the markers if they were already there?
Yes!
Would I have them removed for a smooth look?
No.
It violates both federal and most state DMV laws.

Would I reinstall them once they were gone?
Probably not.....but that's just me:cheers:

Could be an issue; however, if you're in their blind spot, how are they going to see a SIDE marker?

everyone makes valid points.i took them off cause i wanted the smooth look down the side.i think it should be okay without them.67 dont have them and body style is identicle.this car will probably never be on the freeway at night and will basically only be used on sunny weekends.today i ran the wires to the four corners.ill post up some pics when i get done my scabwork.ill make sure to tell my agent from grundy or haggerty when i switch .

I don't blame you for the smooth look. It's a very nice touch.
The DMV is being "by the book" and I guess I can't fault them for that.
It unfortunately seems to be a matter of one years difference in the regs.

Look forward to seeing your solution.:cheers:

Easy, they look over their shoulder and don't see you.

i guess in a round about way, that was my point. pretty common sense that they wont play an issue. the common sense gets skewed after you lawyers get involved :yes:. all valid points, and i do appreciate your expert input.

to the op, did you figure out what the law requires? do they just need to be a reflector, or do they need to be a light?

:lol: I see what you mean (no pun intended), but if they can't see the car when they turn their head, they're not going to see the side marker lights either.

I agree.

A truer statement has ever been uttered!:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

FWIW, I'm not a lawyer.
I actually have a soul:rofl: :rofl: