Home > For Everyone > Transportation > {More Transportation Topics} > Motor Vehicle Laws > Traffic Law Violations > Florida Statutes 316.221 - Taillamps

Traffic Law Violations

For this topic:

Go back to the topic homeTopic Home
Join the forum for this topicForum
Sign up for Email related to this topicEmail
RSS feed for this topicRSS
FeedbackFeedback

Search the Florida Statutes

Florida Statutes 316.221 - Taillamps

Florida Statutes > Title XXIII > Chapter 316 > § 316.221 - Taillamps

^{Current as of: 2011}

^{Check for updates}

2010 version

(1) Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, and any other vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall be equipped with at least two taillamps mounted on the rear, which, when lighted as required in s. 316.217, shall emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear, except that passenger cars and pickup trucks manufactured or assembled prior to January 1, 1972, which were originally equipped with only one taillamp shall have at least one taillamp. On a combination of vehicles, only the taillamps on the rearmost vehicle need actually be seen from the distance specified. On vehicles equipped with more than one taillamp, the lamps shall be mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable. An object, material, or covering that alters the taillamp’s visibility from 1,000 feet may not be placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied over a taillamp.

(2) Either a taillamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear. Any taillamp or taillamps, together with any separate lamp or lamps for illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted. Dump trucks and vehicles having dump bodies are exempt from the requirements of this subsection.

(3) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 79-97; s. 173, ch. 99-248; s

________________________________________________________________________

Questions & Answers: Traffic Law Violations

Kevin, The charge for illegal use of the horn seems incredibly petty, but perhaps you can defend against it by arguing that the cat could have caused an accident by causing a motor...

What accommodations are highway authorities required to make for blind people at crosswalks?...

How close to a corner intersection can a person park if there is no painted crosswalk? Cars parked too close to a corner block the vision of others trying to enter a main street w...

I have a 12 inch strip with 10 low luminosity red leds that are mounted underneath the gas tank on a Harely Davidson Road King and they shine down on the chrome on the engine and t...

In a collission where 545.061 applies, for the auto moving from left to right, absent an eye witness, what collision point on the driver's side of the car indicates that this car h...

I'm from California & got speeding ticket in Clark County, NV with the wrong color about my car. Do you think i should go to court to trial or just pay the bail? Pls. advise....

Bookmark

Comments (2) add comment

William Biscoe: ...

I was just written a traffic violation 316.221 for my tail lamps. They are tinted with a smoke colored tint that was purchased this way. The officer wrote altered tail lamps/tinted as the violation however the florida statute above states that if it is visible from 1000 feet that it is not illegal even if it is altered. I just tested this with a friend and It is in fact visible from beyond 1000 feet away. Is this a valid dispute I can have against this violation?

June 06, 2012

Steven Daily: ...

While you do make some sense, I'm not sure about your interpretation of this Florida statute. Section 316.221 states that "An object, material, or covering that alters the taillamp’s visibility from 1,000 feet may not be placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied over a taillamp."

Imagine one of your taillamps was tinted, and the other untinted, and you observed the car from 1,000 feet away. Would the tinted taillamp be less visible (i.e., smaller, darker) than the untinted taillamp? If so, it would seem that you have "altered the taillamp's visibility."

Also, your interpretation makes the above sentence completely redundant in the context of the statute, doesn't it? Why is the sentence in there, if all that matters is that the taillamps be visible at 1,000 feet? Nevertheless, you do have a reasonable argument. Good luck to you.

June 06, 2012