Dissapointed LED Side markers..........

[Ibanezbass671]

Well, they refunded me and they told me I get to keep them, no need to ship them back......I might just put them on just to see how they look, but that embossed look on the driver side lense bothers me...lol. Other than that I got a these comming in on the way

https://www.f150leds.com/collection...nger-raptor-style-extreme-amber-led-grill-kit

Sponsored

 

[OFC Ranger]

For the very reason you’ve stated and so that parked vehicles can still be seen when it’s dark. Imagine the irony of a parked vehicle being deemed at fault in an accident claim.

They are important safety features but anyone buying these certainly doesn’t care. I love my black on black on black on black truck and I think those look way better, but there’s no way I’d mess with the side markers or tint my taillights.

This might seem kind of funny, but at least in Georgia I have very rarely seen a parked vehicle found at fault in an accident. Basically hitting a stationary vehicle, unless some extremely bizarre scenario (like around a very blind corner / hill crest), gets you hit with at fault by distracted driving. The owner of the vehicle parked illegally still might get cited, but the vehicle in motion would be the cause of the wreck. More or less the driver is responsible for maintaining full situational awareness in regards to stationary objects.

 

[OFC Ranger]

Well, they refunded me and they told me I get to keep them, no need to ship them back......I might just put them on just to see how they look, but that embossed look on the driver side lense bothers me...lol. Other than that I got a these comming in on the way

https://www.f150leds.com/collection...nger-raptor-style-extreme-amber-led-grill-kit

Wet sand them and just toss some spray on gloss clear coat.

 

[paval3]

Federal regulation says front marker lights are to be amber but if I understand correctly, in CA they can be white or amber. I was just reading about PA, it says retroreflective reflectors are allowed. I wonder if the smoke LED marker lights are retroreflective. When I drive the Mountaineer back from the barn tonight, I'll see if I can shine the headlights towards the front of my Ranger and see if I can tell.

Any waaaaaay... I have the smoke LED front marker lights and had the truck in for state inspection in March and it passed inspection.

Edited to add: So does the regulation just imply that when illuminated, the front marker lights have to be amber (as in they don't want lit up in blue or red or green, etc.)? I haven't read anything specifically that says there has to be amber reflectors on side front.

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

This might seem kind of funny, but at least in Georgia I have very rarely seen a parked vehicle found at fault in an accident. Basically hitting a stationary vehicle, unless some extremely bizarre scenario (like around a very blind corner / hill crest), gets you hit with at fault by distracted driving. The owner of the vehicle parked illegally still might get cited, but the vehicle in motion would be the cause of the wreck. More or less the driver is responsible for maintaining full situational awareness in regards to stationary objects.

Totally agree and it’s either distracted driving or dui. I recall a case in New Brunswick where the owner was partially at fault (maybe 25%) but I think it was parked on the opposite side or something - not because of side markers.

But, I do think it would be funny if some observant adjuster made a case of it. As far as Law Enforcement goes - I don’t think too many are bothering with these things - not even those who work mostly Traffic - so much more going on, I’m sure.

I mean, seriously, I heard there’s some guy driving around GA with his own custom, homemade plate.

 

[D Fresh]

This might seem kind of funny, but at least in Georgia I have very rarely seen a parked vehicle found at fault in an accident. Basically hitting a stationary vehicle, unless some extremely bizarre scenario (like around a very blind corner / hill crest), gets you hit with at fault by distracted driving. The owner of the vehicle parked illegally still might get cited, but the vehicle in motion would be the cause of the wreck. More or less the driver is responsible for maintaining full situational awareness in regards to stationary objects.

One of our drivers was found at fault, and the other party is suing both him and the dairy's insurance.

Truck was stopped dead in the water, idiot ran out of gas. Lights were on, but no hazards or safety triangles out. Truck was stopped in a turn lane. Other driver ran smack dab into the back of it.

 

[OFC Ranger]

One of our drivers was found at fault, and the other party is suing both him and the dairy's insurance.

Truck was stopped dead in the water, idiot ran out of gas. Lights were on, but no hazards or safety triangles out. Truck was stopped in a turn lane. Other driver ran smack dab into the back of it.

Yup. Our tort system allows anyone to sue anyone for anything.

 

[OFC Ranger]

Totally agree and it’s either distracted driving or dui. I recall a case in New Brunswick where the owner was partially at fault (maybe 25%) but I think it was parked on the opposite side or something - not because of side markers.

But, I do think it would be funny if some observant adjuster made a case of it. As far as Law Enforcement goes - I don’t think too many are bothering with these things - not even those who work mostly Traffic - so much more going on, I’m sure.

I mean, seriously, I heard there’s some guy driving around GA with his own custom, homemade plate.

As funny as it is, you probably have a far greater chance of being pulled over for tag lights (fishing expadition) being out than an out-of-spec marker light.

 

[D Fresh]

Yup. Our tort system allows anyone to sue anyone for anything.

Also note that our driver got the only ticket, and was deemed "at fault" by the courts and both insurance companies.

It is very much possible for a stationary vehicle to be deemed at fault in an accident.

 

[Bob902]

But, I do think it would be funny if some observant adjuster made a case of it. As far as Law Enforcement goes - I don’t think too many are bothering with these things - not even those who work mostly Traffic - so much more going on, I’m sure.

In almost 30 years of traffic enforcement, I never looked at side marker lights or reflectors. Taillights and rear reflectors, yes.

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

Yup. Our tort system allows anyone to sue anyone for anything.

Well, it’s a big industry - maybe as big as the aftermarket side marker biz. ?

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

Also note that our driver got the only ticket, and was deemed "at fault" by the courts and both insurance companies.

It is very much possible for a stationary vehicle to be deemed at fault in an accident.

 

[OFC Ranger]

Also note that our driver got the only ticket, and was deemed "at fault" by the courts and both insurance companies.

It is very much possible for a stationary vehicle to be deemed at fault in an accident.

Yes anything is possible, but under most day to day circumstances not usually.

For example, in Georgia it is illegal to park against the curb / side of road if it is directly across from someones driveway. However, if someone parks there and you go to back out of your driveway and hit the parked car, you will be found at fault as far as the accident report is concerned.

The arguement would be one of two reasonings:

1.) You were not paying attention

2.) If you felt you could not leave your driveway, you contact law enforcement to resolve the issue, not take it upon yourself to be a brodozer and respond with "well he shouldn't have been there"

(not that I agree with #2, sometimes people need that stuff to happen lol)

Another example. If a car breaks down in the middle of the road and can't make it to the side to pull off and you come along and smash into them, you will be at fault.

 

[D Fresh]

Yes anything is possible, but under most day to day circumstances not usually.

For example, in Georgia it is illegal to park against the curb / side of road if it is directly across from someones driveway. However, if someone parks there and you go to back out of your driveway and hit the parked car, you will be found at fault as far as the accident report is concerned.

The arguement would be one of two reasonings:

1.) You were not paying attention

2.) If you felt you could not leave your driveway, you contact law enforcement to resolve the issue, not take it upon yourself to be a brodozer and respond with "well he shouldn't have been there"

(not that I agree with #2, sometimes people need that stuff to happen lol)

I know you guys are constantly being told how to do your job. But I would think that although the guy backing out is ultimately "at fault," the guy parking illegally should also get a ticket.

Through my limited accident experiences I've been led to believe that the police don't really determine who is at fault. It is my understanding that determining fault is left up to the insurance companies and/or civil courts if needed.

In that example I'd expect a parking violation for the illegal parker, and a moving violation for the backer. And I'd expect the insurance companies or courts to determine that fault lies with the person driving their car. Although, sometimes insurance companies "split" fault. They might determine 80/20 or 90/10 if the illegal parker has a good insurance company.

Also, YES!

There's been a few times I've felt like punting an asshole parker with a milktruck just to teach them a lesson. I can handle some points on my license, I can pass a drug test, and a three day vacation seems nice some days.

Another example. If a car breaks down in the middle of the road and can't make it to the side to pull off and you come along and smash into them, you will be at fault.

That's literally the example I gave above. Our driver was disabled in a lane of traffic without hazards or triangles and has been found "at fault."

 

[OFC Ranger]

I know you guys are constantly being told how to do your job. But I would think that although the guy backing out is ultimately "at fault," the guy parking illegally should also get a ticket.

Through my limited accident experiences I've been led to believe that the police don't really determine who is at fault. It is my understanding that determining fault is left up to the insurance companies and/or civil courts if needed.

In that example I'd expect a parking violation for the illegal parker, and a moving violation for the backer. And I'd expect the insurance companies or courts to determine that fault lies with the person driving their car. Although, sometimes insurance companies "split" fault. They might determine 80/20 or 90/10 if the illegal parker has a good insurance company.

Also, YES!

There's been a few times I've felt like punting an asshole parker with a milktruck just to teach them a lesson. I can handle some points on my license, I can pass a drug test, and a three day vacation seems nice some days.



That's literally the example I gave above. Our driver was disabled in a lane of traffic without hazards or triangles and has been found "at fault."

I didn't say police were consistent did I? HA

In your situation, if it had been night time (for example) I would more than likely find the disabled driver at fault because of so many negligent choices. During a bright sunny day on a wide, flat, straight road, with multiple mile visibility? They would get a ticket, but probably not found at fault. Between their wrecked car and a ticket, we call that the "stupid tax". The stupid tax includes tickets for categories like disorderly conduct, public drunk, or trespassing.

You are half correct when it comes to fault determination, at least in Georgia. We do not determine fault on private property, only if on a public road way.

Personally I don't feel like we should be involved at all on private property accidents unless serious bodily injury has occurred.

Sponsored