http://jalopnik.com/5589270/maryland...lights-illegal

 

thats ****ed up. if the government says its legal, it should be legal, and the government should step in.

 

Now THAT is fuсking awesome. The government CAN'T step in. The whole point of US of A is the damn sovereign states.

 

Yeah its bs. Technically if the retarded cops in Michigan were to read the state law, amber turn signals in the rear of the car is illegal, and alot of factory cars come with amber rear signals. According to the michigan vehicle code the only aloud color for rear signals is red.

 

Maybe now they'll stop making those ugly *** taillights.

 

That's f'ed up. Can't he just appeal the decision though?

 

now if they would only write tickets to the idiots with altezzas
i think chrome housing tail lights should all be illegal

 

i think HID in reflective halogen housings should be fined more too.

 

Disagree. I wanted HID's but didn't want ugly ricer projectors. I don't think I should be fined. But I have mine pointed down and turn on my low beams, which aren't HID's, when someone else drives by. I do think people who have them pointed pretty much at the same level as high beams, and keep them on even when someone else drives by should be though. That's just annoying and dangerous for others.

 

I'd feel more comfortable believing the whole article if it had quoted some actual words by the judge or court documents; but by quoting what the "offender"/plaintiff's summary of the case is rather bias isn't it? personally I don't think the article is that credible

btw, after reading some comments of the article, it seems that the guy did actually modify the tail lights, which makes the cop/judge's rule legitimate (but maybe the reason given not so convincing)