So, I have a question. Wat are the DOT rules when it comes to NEW turn signal lenses. If an item is DOT approved does it have to say "DOT" on it?? I know that some parts can be DOT approved with out saying DOT on them. An example are the Troutman SS Brake lines. They have a logo that they stamp in the flats of the hose ends and this logo is registerd with the DOT and denotes a product that has passed the DOT testing. Are lenses the same or different? I ask because I got a lens that is suposed to be OEM but does not say DOT on it and does not have the manufacturers name on it. There are a few markings on the lens like a small square w/ an "A" in it and a circle with "E1" in it and a string of numbers I can not remember below that. Like I said this is a NEW lens and is suposed to be OEM. I got a Genuine lens for the other side and it has the manufacturers name on it along with "DOT" and some other marking. The 2 lenses also differ a little in color and in the thickness of the "Black Frame" around the edge. The one without the DOT marks says made in Germany on the box and the onw with the DOT marks says made in the Checz republic. Any ideas?? Sorry for the ramble.
Front or rear?
DOT approval stamping is supposed to be on all lenses if they are indeed legal> Yes, this is true< I have designed many exterior lamps and the supplier always wants to put the legal stuff in the worst possible place. The writing must also be right-side up, meaning you cannot have a lens that is the same for left and right unless it stays in the same orientation.
As for what makes it DOT approved, thats a whole different ball of wax. If its a replacement part, it should have the same light output, light able area, lit angles that apply and red side reflex(rear) amber (front) if a US vehicle in not remote on the body. If your are not a major OEM supplier, I wouldn't worry about it for yourself, but if something happens to someone else, and they are not indeed certified DOT legal, you will get sued to the poor house, but thats why you have product liability insurance right?
Mark
DOT approval stamping is supposed to be on all lenses if they are indeed legal> Yes, this is true< I have designed many exterior lamps and the supplier always wants to put the legal stuff in the worst possible place. The writing must also be right-side up, meaning you cannot have a lens that is the same for left and right unless it stays in the same orientation.
As for what makes it DOT approved, thats a whole different ball of wax. If its a replacement part, it should have the same light output, light able area, lit angles that apply and red side reflex(rear) amber (front) if a US vehicle in not remote on the body. If your are not a major OEM supplier, I wouldn't worry about it for yourself, but if something happens to someone else, and they are not indeed certified DOT legal, you will get sued to the poor house, but thats why you have product liability insurance right?
Mark
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM) 
soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
They already are. NASA only had about 500MB of computing power...
In California, I would not worry about your lens DOT status. The only agency that would possibly inspect for it a the Highway Patrol and they have bigger issues to deal with. California only cares about Smog Check Money.
QUOTE(kg6dxn @ Dec 5 2010, 09:23 AM)
California only cares about Smog Check Money.
I recently read an opinion regarding DOT regulations for motorcycle muffers. It sounded like the regulations pertain mainly to manufactures and not so much to what an owner might do to change the original equipment.
Since DOTs are mainly Federal in nature, local authorities aren't directly interested.
Having said that, there are still state regulations that insure safety, and there are penalties for those violations.
Since DOTs are mainly Federal in nature, local authorities aren't directly interested.
Having said that, there are still state regulations that insure safety, and there are penalties for those violations.
QUOTE(marks914 @ Dec 4 2010, 04:33 AM)
Front or rear?
DOT approval stamping is supposed to be on all lenses if they are indeed legal> Yes, this is true< I have designed many exterior lamps and the supplier always wants to put the legal stuff in the worst possible place. The writing must also be right-side up, meaning you cannot have a lens that is the same for left and right unless it stays in the same orientation.
As for what makes it DOT approved, thats a whole different ball of wax. If its a replacement part, it should have the same light output, light able area, lit angles that apply and red side reflex(rear) amber (front) if a US vehicle in not remote on the body. If your are not a major OEM supplier, I wouldn't worry about it for yourself, but if something happens to someone else, and they are not indeed certified DOT legal, you will get sued to the poor house, but thats why you have product liability insurance right?
Mark
Thank you Mark, that was to the point and what i was looking for. to the others I do not care about California, I wanted to know if a DOT approved lens had to have "DOT" printed on the lens.
Lens used in the US must have DOT or SAE mark on them. It means they meet the minimum light requirements for safety requirements. The inspector check my lights on my kit car for approved lights.
QUOTE(kg6dxn @ Dec 5 2010, 12:23 PM)
They already are. NASA only had about 500MB of computing power...
Around the time my Dad bought his first Saab (circa 1986), I remember a Saab ad touting that their cars had more computing power than Apollo capsules had. So apparently we crossed that line quite a while ago.
On another note... I'm wondering how the DOT certification relates to state-by-state regulations on vehicle lighting requirements. When I changed over to Euro-style tail light lenses, I did some research on local (State) regulations.
States specify the number of tail-lights for each function (signal, brake, lighting, license plate illumination), the acceptable colors for each, etc. Does DOT certification mean that a lens satisfies the various statutes of all 50 states? Or are they unrelated?
QUOTE(jim_hoyland @ Dec 5 2010, 08:02 PM)
I recently read an opinion regarding DOT regulations for motorcycle muffers. It sounded like the regulations pertain mainly to manufactures and not so much to what an owner might do to change the original equipment.
Since DOTs are mainly Federal in nature, local authorities aren't directly interested.
Having said that, there are still state regulations that insure safety, and there are penalties for those violations.
The state of California just passed a regulation stating that all vehicles manufactured after 2013 need to have DOT legal mufflers. 99% of aftermarket mufflers are not DOT approved so changing your factory muffler to an aftermarket one is going to be illegal. Mufflers are a completely different situation though...
Regulations are different in every state and change all the time. If you ask a law enforcement officer they will not answer your questions with anything other than referring you to your states regulations. Here in Washington it is the RCW and I check online before I make any questionable changes to anything.
QUOTE(flipb @ Dec 6 2010, 08:53 AM)
QUOTE(kg6dxn @ Dec 5 2010, 12:23 PM)
They already are. NASA only had about 500MB of computing power...
Around the time my Dad bought his first Saab (circa 1986), I remember a Saab ad touting that their cars had more computing power than Apollo capsules had. So apparently we crossed that line quite a while ago.
On another note... I'm wondering how the DOT certification relates to state-by-state regulations on vehicle lighting requirements. When I changed over to Euro-style tail light lenses, I did some research on local (State) regulations.
States specify the number of tail-lights for each function (signal, brake, lighting, license plate illumination), the acceptable colors for each, etc. Does DOT certification mean that a lens satisfies the various statutes of all 50 states? Or are they unrelated?
All states will accept DOT (Early years) or SAE (latter years) lights.
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them?
Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.
DOT means DOT...just like the TUV approved.
No stamp or logo means its not approved.
ILBT
Rich
No stamp or logo means its not approved.
ILBT
Rich
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
QUOTE(flipb @ Dec 6 2010, 08:53 AM)
Around the time my Dad bought his first Saab (circa 1986), I remember a Saab ad touting that their cars had more computing power than Apollo capsules had.
That sounds about right.
Interesting fact:
*All* of mission control combined (not just the capsule!) during the moon landing had about the same computing power as a Commodore C64...
As for the DOT stamping, if it's missing, the lenses are not street legal in the US. Simple as that.
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 6 2010, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
Please show me where you answered the question! Do the lenses have to be marked DOT to be DOT approved? Not answered. Then your comment about the fact that you think the DOT rules are Draconian is just an opinion. The bit about no one caring as long as they are close is also an opinion. Not to mention the fact that I asked nicely. I just wanted some facts.
QUOTE(r_towle @ Dec 6 2010, 12:57 PM)
DOT means DOT...just like the TUV approved.
No stamp or logo means its not approved.
Yup, been thinking about going "naked" on my Ninja 500R with a pair of small headlights replacing the automotive style single light. Unfortunately all the lights I like are non-DOT.
Are the AA Repro Euro tail light lenses DOT approved? I'm afraid I know the answer, but they're already on my teener and I like them...
(My car's at the shop so I can't check them myself)
(My car's at the shop so I can't check them myself)
QUOTE(flipb @ Dec 6 2010, 11:50 AM)
Are the AA Repro Euro tail light lenses DOT approved? I'm afraid I know the answer, but they're already on my teener and I like them...
(My car's at the shop so I can't check them myself)
I have no idea.
QUOTE
S5.8.10 Unless otherwise specified in this standard, each lamp,
reflective device, or item of associated equipment to which paragraph
S5.8.1 applies may be labeled with the symbol DOT, which shall
constitute a certification that it conforms to applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
reflective device, or item of associated equipment to which paragraph
S5.8.1 applies may be labeled with the symbol DOT, which shall
constitute a certification that it conforms to applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
The Federal Standard 59CFR571.108 S5.8.10 (above) says "may" which implies the DOT marking is NOT manditory.
Note Headlamps are required to be marked with DOT in paragraph S7.2.
CFR is here: 59CFR571.108.
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 6 2010, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
Please show me where you answered the question! Do the lenses have to be marked DOT to be DOT approved? Not answered. Then your comment about the fact that you think the DOT rules are Draconian is just an opinion. The bit about no one caring as long as they are close is also an opinion. Not to mention the fact that I asked nicely. I just wanted some facts.
I tired to look it up for you, i gave you the info I had, you where anything but nice about my reply. you did ask for "any ideas" I gave you my idea that it dont matter much to the authorities if it is stamped DOT or not so long as it looks right. sorry that ain't the answer you wanted.
Now are you going to rag on admin Sir Andy, and the other posters also?, after all Sir Andy (admin) posted something that did not meet your strict ctriteria for amnswering your question. fact is the admin posted something very simular to my post, completely off your topic. Go for it, make a public complaint aginst Sir Andy (Admin) for his post with the old computer photo, and his data on the Apollo moon rocket. Come on rag away, after all you are an equal oppertunity ragger aren't you?
get over it, and live a little, take helpful advice for what it is, even if it does not meet your strict criteria.
you know if you really wanted the info, and not opinions, why dont you look up the DOT rules your self? then you can get it straight from the source.
politics my ass.
Simple to determine here, no stamp not approved. To get DOT aproval, you have to send the lenses fo an "approved" DOT lab, that will rate the angles, lumens transmitted, and impact resistance, just to name a few. Testing is about 35K.
You will find that 99% of the lenses on the market that are not OEM, do not meet this standard. Even if they are the same or better quality. They can be used for "off road use only". However, you will find enforcement of this spotty at best. If your not driving a Honda with a muffler that sounds like a dying cow, you're probably not going to be an issue. Even if you did get cited, you should only get a fix it ticket, unless you comment on the officers fondness of farm animals and strawbery jello.
What it boils down to was a barrier to keep the lenses all OEM, and "protect" the public from "unsafe products".
You will find that 99% of the lenses on the market that are not OEM, do not meet this standard. Even if they are the same or better quality. They can be used for "off road use only". However, you will find enforcement of this spotty at best. If your not driving a Honda with a muffler that sounds like a dying cow, you're probably not going to be an issue. Even if you did get cited, you should only get a fix it ticket, unless you comment on the officers fondness of farm animals and strawbery jello.
What it boils down to was a barrier to keep the lenses all OEM, and "protect" the public from "unsafe products".
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 6 2010, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
Please show me where you answered the question! Do the lenses have to be marked DOT to be DOT approved? Not answered. Then your comment about the fact that you think the DOT rules are Draconian is just an opinion. The bit about no one caring as long as they are close is also an opinion. Not to mention the fact that I asked nicely. I just wanted some facts.
I tired to look it up for you, i gave you the info I had, you where anything but nice about my reply. you did ask for "any ideas" I gave you my idea that it dont matter much to the authorities if it is stamped DOT or not so long as it looks right. sorry that ain't the answer you wanted.
Now are you going to rag on admin Sir Andy, and the other posters also?, after all Sir Andy (admin) posted something that did not meet your strict ctriteria for amnswering your question. fact is the admin posted something very simular to my post, completely off your topic. Go for it, make a public complaint aginst Sir Andy (Admin) for his post with the old computer photo, and his data on the Apollo moon rocket. Come on rag away, after all you are an equal oppertunity ragger aren't you?
get over it, and live a little, take helpful advice for what it is, even if it does not meet your strict criteria.
you know if you really wanted the info, and not opinions, why dont you look up the DOT rules your self? then you can get it straight from the source.
politics my ass.
Red- I am afraid you just don't get it. Andy posted a fact about the commodore. it was not a personal opinion about the government. He also posted a fact about the lens not having the DOT markings. He did all that without trying to read the minds of myself or the local police in my area, which I did not ask about in the first place and without divulging his personal feeling about the the DOT or the Government. I did not ask about the local police in my area or any other area because that is not the issue. We all know you hate the government! The issue is, if it does not say DOT is it DOT legal? that is it. Please re-read my initial post! The "any ideas" was an obvious reference to the fact that one lens was marked DOT and one was not.
as for looking it up my self, I did do research and could not find the answer. I also knew that there were people on this board that may have had experience in this area and felt that they might be able to help or at least pinpoint where i needed to look, as they did.
Last, about the politics, you are the one that tossed in your feelings about the government and its rules, that is politics and i just asked nicely to leave it out. It is pretty clear that you do not like the government and the way that it intrudes into your life. I respect that and quite frankly even understand it. You would like them to leave you alone and not mess with you. I get it. You do not want them sticking there opinions into your life. If you hate it so much, as you have obviously made clear, why do you insist on doing the things you hate to others?
Wow, another way off track ! You have a European OEM lens then ? I would assume they wouldn't be marked DOT over there.
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 7 2010, 09:08 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 6 2010, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
Please show me where you answered the question! Do the lenses have to be marked DOT to be DOT approved? Not answered. Then your comment about the fact that you think the DOT rules are Draconian is just an opinion. The bit about no one caring as long as they are close is also an opinion. Not to mention the fact that I asked nicely. I just wanted some facts.
I tired to look it up for you, i gave you the info I had, you where anything but nice about my reply. you did ask for "any ideas" I gave you my idea that it dont matter much to the authorities if it is stamped DOT or not so long as it looks right. sorry that ain't the answer you wanted.
Now are you going to rag on admin Sir Andy, and the other posters also?, after all Sir Andy (admin) posted something that did not meet your strict ctriteria for amnswering your question. fact is the admin posted something very simular to my post, completely off your topic. Go for it, make a public complaint aginst Sir Andy (Admin) for his post with the old computer photo, and his data on the Apollo moon rocket. Come on rag away, after all you are an equal oppertunity ragger aren't you?
get over it, and live a little, take helpful advice for what it is, even if it does not meet your strict criteria.
you know if you really wanted the info, and not opinions, why dont you look up the DOT rules your self? then you can get it straight from the source.
politics my ass.
Red- I am afraid you just don't get it. Andy posted a fact about the commodore. it was not a personal opinion about the government. He also posted a fact about the lens not having the DOT markings. He did all that without trying to read the minds of myself or the local police in my area, which I did not ask about in the first place and without divulging his personal feeling about the the DOT or the Government. I did not ask about the local police in my area or any other area because that is not the issue. We all know you hate the government! The issue is, if it does not say DOT is it DOT legal? that is it. Please re-read my initial post! The "any ideas" was an obvious reference to the fact that one lens was marked DOT and one was not.
as for looking it up my self, I did do research and could not find the answer. I also knew that there were people on this board that may have had experience in this area and felt that they might be able to help or at least pinpoint where i needed to look, as they did.
Last, about the politics, you are the one that tossed in your feelings about the government and its rules, that is politics and i just asked nicely to leave it out. It is pretty clear that you do not like the government and the way that it intrudes into your life. I respect that and quite frankly even understand it. You would like them to leave you alone and not mess with you. I get it. You do not want them sticking there opinions into your life. If you hate it so much, as you have obviously made clear, why do you insist on doing the things you hate to others?
first off there was no politcs involved, so get off your high horse there bucko. second your rambleing question asked for ideas, my idea was to not worry about it, so long as it looks ok. others expressed simular thought, some posted that it was all about the state making money off of smog checks. yet you choose to specifically call me out as not answering your question and being politcal.
so piss away, your free to start a hate post call it rag on red, just rag away. (oh no need for that, you have turned you own post into a rag on red post!!!) it is so funny how you have gone so off topic on your own sacred post, with the one goal to criticize my help, whilest ignoring others that did simular.
read these posts and tell me why you did not rag on them for posting?....
kg6dxn ("its about smog check money")
robW (agrees with kg6dxn comments)
jim hoyland (Golly he went off topic with motorcylce mufflers)
FlipB (comments on Saab advertising, and the Apollo program, and question on how federal rules relate to the states)
70 914 (post about future california muffler laws. Posted after you stated you dont care about california)
SirAndy (posts facts on Apollo mission control, and a photo of an old computer)
Zymerqist (posts about lights on a ninja bike)
FlipB (comments on AA made lenses )
so get with it and piss on everyones parade that posted non-answers to you petty question. be sure to give the admin a good beating and see where you get. dont just pick on me, cause that makes you a jerk. I was only try to help you out with the best info I had. I dont like being singled out for your hate. read the entire topic again and tell me why you singled me out????
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 09:41 AM)
tell me why you singled me out????
You really have to ask?
QUOTE(SirAndy @ Dec 7 2010, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 09:41 AM)
tell me why you singled me out????
You really have to ask?
must be the love, cant figure how I ever crossed hwgunner before. he sure has it out for me though???????
At least he has shot himself in the foot so far as keeping this post on topic, could have let it slide, oh well,
his personal attack on my attempted assitsance shows the kind of person he is.
he must have some petty grudge aginst me
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 09:41 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 7 2010, 09:08 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 6 2010, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
Please show me where you answered the question! Do the lenses have to be marked DOT to be DOT approved? Not answered. Then your comment about the fact that you think the DOT rules are Draconian is just an opinion. The bit about no one caring as long as they are close is also an opinion. Not to mention the fact that I asked nicely. I just wanted some facts.
I tired to look it up for you, i gave you the info I had, you where anything but nice about my reply. you did ask for "any ideas" I gave you my idea that it dont matter much to the authorities if it is stamped DOT or not so long as it looks right. sorry that ain't the answer you wanted.
Now are you going to rag on admin Sir Andy, and the other posters also?, after all Sir Andy (admin) posted something that did not meet your strict ctriteria for amnswering your question. fact is the admin posted something very simular to my post, completely off your topic. Go for it, make a public complaint aginst Sir Andy (Admin) for his post with the old computer photo, and his data on the Apollo moon rocket. Come on rag away, after all you are an equal oppertunity ragger aren't you?
get over it, and live a little, take helpful advice for what it is, even if it does not meet your strict criteria.
you know if you really wanted the info, and not opinions, why dont you look up the DOT rules your self? then you can get it straight from the source.
politics my ass.
Red- I am afraid you just don't get it. Andy posted a fact about the commodore. it was not a personal opinion about the government. He also posted a fact about the lens not having the DOT markings. He did all that without trying to read the minds of myself or the local police in my area, which I did not ask about in the first place and without divulging his personal feeling about the the DOT or the Government. I did not ask about the local police in my area or any other area because that is not the issue. We all know you hate the government! The issue is, if it does not say DOT is it DOT legal? that is it. Please re-read my initial post! The "any ideas" was an obvious reference to the fact that one lens was marked DOT and one was not.
as for looking it up my self, I did do research and could not find the answer. I also knew that there were people on this board that may have had experience in this area and felt that they might be able to help or at least pinpoint where i needed to look, as they did.
Last, about the politics, you are the one that tossed in your feelings about the government and its rules, that is politics and i just asked nicely to leave it out. It is pretty clear that you do not like the government and the way that it intrudes into your life. I respect that and quite frankly even understand it. You would like them to leave you alone and not mess with you. I get it. You do not want them sticking there opinions into your life. If you hate it so much, as you have obviously made clear, why do you insist on doing the things you hate to others?
first off there was no politcs involved, so get off your high horse there bucko. second your rambleing question asked for ideas, my idea was to not worry about it, so long as it looks ok. others expressed simular thought, some posted that it was all about the state making money off of smog checks. yet you choose to specifically call me out as not answering your question and being politcal.
so piss away, your free to start a hate post call it rag on red, just rag away. (oh no need for that, you have turned you own post into a rag on red post!!!) it is so funny how you have gone so off topic on your own sacred post, with the one goal to criticize my help, whilest ignoring others that did simular.
read these posts and tell me why you did not rag on them for posting?....
kg6dxn ("its about smog check money")
robW (agrees with kg6dxn comments)
jim hoyland (Golly he went off topic with motorcylce mufflers)
FlipB (comments on Saab advertising, and the Apollo program, and question on how federal rules relate to the states)
70 914 (post about future california muffler laws. Posted after you stated you dont care about california)
SirAndy (posts facts on Apollo mission control, and a photo of an old computer)
Zymerqist (posts about lights on a ninja bike)
FlipB (comments on AA made lenses )
so get with it and piss on everyones parade that posted non-answers to you petty question. be sure to give the admin a good beating and see where you get. dont just pick on me, cause that makes you a jerk. I was only try to help you out with the best info I had. I dont like being singled out for your hate. read the entire topic again and tell me why you singled me out????
Red, I singled you out because you were the first one to post on my topic and i have seen other topics that you have posted on and taken off topic because of your hate of the government. You personally have made comments denigrating the work that members of my family and some of my friends do and i don't like it. It goes back to you not wanting others to impose their opinions and beliefs on you yet you have no problem imposing your opinions and beliefs on others. And, again, I asked nicely.
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 10:34 AM)
QUOTE(SirAndy @ Dec 7 2010, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 09:41 AM)
tell me why you singled me out????
You really have to ask?
must be the love, cant figure how I ever crossed hwgunner before. he sure has it out for me though???????
At least he has shot himself in the foot so far as keeping this post on topic, could have let it slide, oh well,
his personal attack on my attempted assitsance shows the kind of person he is.
he must have some petty grudge aginst me
WOW!
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 10:34 AM)
QUOTE(SirAndy @ Dec 7 2010, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 09:41 AM)
tell me why you singled me out????
You really have to ask?
must be the love, cant figure how I ever crossed hwgunner before. he sure has it out for me though???????
At least he has shot himself in the foot so far as keeping this post on topic, could have let it slide, oh well,
his personal attack on my attempted assitsance shows the kind of person he is.
he must have some petty grudge aginst me
I am curious if you think the things you say are just words?? do you really think you can randomly attack a group of people and not offend any one? As for doing it in my post, I have not commented in other peoples posts because it is not my post. Start a down on red post? not my style. If it were i would rename my post or just post in other places where you have posted.
Well, I have learned that the lens that does not say Bosch is not a Bosch lens. No real surprise there. I also learned that it is actually made by Automotive Lighting, which is a Magneti Marelli Company. Bosch sold its lighting division to AL a couple years ago. I have also been told that they still have a contract with Porsche to make the lens. I am just waiting to hear if the lens is DOT approved, according to them (AL).
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 7 2010, 10:38 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 09:41 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 7 2010, 09:08 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 7 2010, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 6 2010, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE(hwgunner @ Dec 6 2010, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE(realred914 @ Dec 5 2010, 07:56 AM)
the rules would be with the DOt probably very complicated at that, for new lenses, that would be for new cars, for you old car any "new" lenses would need to comply with the rules in place for your car when it was new.
for the marking on the lense, dont worry so long as the lense has about the right color and brightness no one will tiocket you for missing the DOT printing on it. sure it may be points off in a car show, but so long as they look about right to the average cop, I would not worry about being DOT complient or not. the rules the DOT has are very draconian, and burocratic, but so long as the light looks right I'd have no worries abot your "black market" lense.
the DOT is now proposing rules to require jammers for cell phone use in cars. no mention on how they intend to deal with passengers use of phones. got to love the government. soon are cars will be more complex than the Apollo moon ship
Please read the thread before responding. The question was do DOT approved lenses (front) have to have "DOT" on them? Please do not use my threads to espouse your political opinions.i tried to answer your question, your welcome.
there is no political opinion here, just the facts, to bad you dont like the facts. now sanatize your eyes cuase you read this highly off topic post on YOUR thread.
what an ungreatful boy you is now go start your rag on red post. have at it baby.
Please show me where you answered the question! Do the lenses have to be marked DOT to be DOT approved? Not answered. Then your comment about the fact that you think the DOT rules are Draconian is just an opinion. The bit about no one caring as long as they are close is also an opinion. Not to mention the fact that I asked nicely. I just wanted some facts.
I tired to look it up for you, i gave you the info I had, you where anything but nice about my reply. you did ask for "any ideas" I gave you my idea that it dont matter much to the authorities if it is stamped DOT or not so long as it looks right. sorry that ain't the answer you wanted.
Now are you going to rag on admin Sir Andy, and the other posters also?, after all Sir Andy (admin) posted something that did not meet your strict ctriteria for amnswering your question. fact is the admin posted something very simular to my post, completely off your topic. Go for it, make a public complaint aginst Sir Andy (Admin) for his post with the old computer photo, and his data on the Apollo moon rocket. Come on rag away, after all you are an equal oppertunity ragger aren't you?
get over it, and live a little, take helpful advice for what it is, even if it does not meet your strict criteria.
you know if you really wanted the info, and not opinions, why dont you look up the DOT rules your self? then you can get it straight from the source.
politics my ass.
Red- I am afraid you just don't get it. Andy posted a fact about the commodore. it was not a personal opinion about the government. He also posted a fact about the lens not having the DOT markings. He did all that without trying to read the minds of myself or the local police in my area, which I did not ask about in the first place and without divulging his personal feeling about the the DOT or the Government. I did not ask about the local police in my area or any other area because that is not the issue. We all know you hate the government! The issue is, if it does not say DOT is it DOT legal? that is it. Please re-read my initial post! The "any ideas" was an obvious reference to the fact that one lens was marked DOT and one was not.
as for looking it up my self, I did do research and could not find the answer. I also knew that there were people on this board that may have had experience in this area and felt that they might be able to help or at least pinpoint where i needed to look, as they did.
Last, about the politics, you are the one that tossed in your feelings about the government and its rules, that is politics and i just asked nicely to leave it out. It is pretty clear that you do not like the government and the way that it intrudes into your life. I respect that and quite frankly even understand it. You would like them to leave you alone and not mess with you. I get it. You do not want them sticking there opinions into your life. If you hate it so much, as you have obviously made clear, why do you insist on doing the things you hate to others?
first off there was no politcs involved, so get off your high horse there bucko. second your rambleing question asked for ideas, my idea was to not worry about it, so long as it looks ok. others expressed simular thought, some posted that it was all about the state making money off of smog checks. yet you choose to specifically call me out as not answering your question and being politcal.
so piss away, your free to start a hate post call it rag on red, just rag away. (oh no need for that, you have turned you own post into a rag on red post!!!) it is so funny how you have gone so off topic on your own sacred post, with the one goal to criticize my help, whilest ignoring others that did simular.
read these posts and tell me why you did not rag on them for posting?....
kg6dxn ("its about smog check money")
robW (agrees with kg6dxn comments)
jim hoyland (Golly he went off topic with motorcylce mufflers)
FlipB (comments on Saab advertising, and the Apollo program, and question on how federal rules relate to the states)
70 914 (post about future california muffler laws. Posted after you stated you dont care about california)
SirAndy (posts facts on Apollo mission control, and a photo of an old computer)
Zymerqist (posts about lights on a ninja bike)
FlipB (comments on AA made lenses )
so get with it and piss on everyones parade that posted non-answers to you petty question. be sure to give the admin a good beating and see where you get. dont just pick on me, cause that makes you a jerk. I was only try to help you out with the best info I had. I dont like being singled out for your hate. read the entire topic again and tell me why you singled me out????
Red, I singled you out because you were the first one to post on my topic and i have seen other topics that you have posted on and taken off topic because of your hate of the government. You personally have made comments denigrating the work that members of my family and some of my friends do and i don't like it. It goes back to you not wanting others to impose their opinions and beliefs on you yet you have no problem imposing your opinions and beliefs on others. And, again, I asked nicely.
oh so you did single me out for things you think i have done other than on this post. ok we are getting closer to the answer, rather than let my post go, which was simular to several others in lacking the content you wanted, you decided to critize me for some past offense. (as of now, yet to be known)
So it seems like you wanted to settle some grudge with me on your post, while at the same time demanding your post be kept on topic, (with execptions for all others (folks you dont have a grudge aginst) that posted "off topic")
i find it funny you took you own post off topic cause of your hate for me.
so I have personnally denigrated members of your family and friends work???? ok what did I do to personnaly denigrate them???? You have made the charge, now back it up or back off.
it must be some really bad grudge to cause you to impose on all the 914 world your petty belief that your freinds and family have been so insulted by me.
your new name should be "hwgrudge"
so what did I do to deserve you hate and grudge?????????
Time to end this Quotathon. It was fun while it lasted ...
IATL
IATL
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.