[Donolotti]

Ind painted side markers

[Sportstick]

Car looks nice, but not a fan of form over function.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/806430.pdf

[Cyberdemon]

Lol I was just thinking about this on my commute in this morning...the one time someone on these forums wished that I got in an accident for having painted side markers.

If another can't notice the reflection of a giant bright white car without a 1" wide strip of reflective material, I suppose we have bigger problems.

Things that are also illegal: Removing Catalytic converters, dark window tint, no front plate, etc. Ironically most of those are the first things a BMW owner will do when buying a car.

[Thescout13]

So you quote a 32 year old report? You have your right to an opinion, and you have good reasons to not want to do it. But it's not your risk to take, and you are likely correct in not taking that risk, but it's condescending to throw a report in someone's face when they know it's a risk.

But, as the OP wanted, looks good man congrats! I think you are smart enough to know that it's a risk but, like me, enjoy form over function.

[Thescout13]

Originally Posted by Cyberdemon

Lol I was just thinking about this on my commute in this morning...the one time someone on these forums wished that I got in an accident for having painted side markers.

If another can't notice the reflection of a giant bright white car without a 1" wide strip of reflective material, I suppose we have bigger problems.

Things that are also illegal: Removing Catalytic converters, dark window tint, no front plate, etc. Ironically most of those are the first things a BMW owner will do when buying a car.

Amen!

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Thescout13

So you quote a 32 year old report? You have your right to an opinion, and you have good reasons to not want to do it. But it's not your risk to take, and you are likely correct in not taking that risk, but it's condescending to throw a report in someone's face when they know it's a risk.

But, as the OP wanted, looks good man congrats! I think you are smart enough to know that it's a risk but, like me, enjoy form over function.

Originally Posted by Cyberdemon

Lol I was just thinking about this on my commute in this morning...the one time someone on these forums wished that I got in an accident for having painted side markers.

If another can't notice the reflection of a giant bright white car without a 1" wide strip of reflective material, I suppose we have bigger problems.

Things that are also illegal: Removing Catalytic converters, dark window tint, no front plate, etc. Ironically most of those are the first things a BMW owner will do when buying a car.

This subject has come up before and it's always striking how much emotional defensiveness comes with it in the face of data. But, let's go through it:

- The age of the report has no meaningful relevance. The actions taken as a result of early research on the usefulness of brake and headlamps, turn signals, etc. are no less valid today than decades ago when first adopted.

- Please explain how one "throws" vs how one "posts" a link. It is not condescending to share data. We have no idea if the OP is or is not aware. It is more often seen as helpful, particularly to anyone not previously familiar, to share data vs the opinions which usually follow. Further, in the absence of sharing the link, the usual response is "Source, please"? Having had that question before, this was more efficient.

- Anyone who wished you harm or damage for any reason is clearly inappropriate and to be dismissed immediately.

- The ability of us to see a white car at night from the side as it comes to an intersection may not be the same for all others. Yes, they may have bigger problems, but they drive.

- Neither the study, nor I, referred to the legality of the issue. The facts were clear. More injuries/crashes without side markers; fewer with them. When you make the choice for yourself, you are also willing to make the choice to take the risk for the other person who you may meet on the road one day.

[scottomfg]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Car looks nice, but not a fan of form over function.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/806430.pdf

Curious to hear why you think that Europeans (and the maker of the car itself) have decided that they don't need side reflectors.

Are BMW and the entire European Union just ignorant yahoos risking everyone's safety for form over function?

I deleted mine without hesitation.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by scottomfg

Curious to hear why you think that Europeans (and the maker of the car itself) have decided that they don't need side reflectors.

Are BMW and the entire European Union just ignorant yahoos risking everyone's safety for form over function?

I deleted mine without hesitation.

Not at all; the Europeans are quite the contrary to your tongue-in-cheek question. But, a bit of background. International harmonization of safety standards has been sought by all auto manufacturers for decades, even before my six year stint as a safety manager at one car company in the 90s. If achieved, it would reduced investment and variable piece costs for all. The problem has always been an unfortunate attitude on both sides of the ocean (primarily between US and Europe) that "we know best". For example, we insist on testing frontal impact for FMVSS 208 with unbelted dummies, as our government believes we need to protect for those who make the forehead-slapping choice to be unbelted. In Europe, testing is done with belted dummies, as they cannot conceive of anyone being unbelted or changing a vehicle design to accommodate for them. In Europe, for many years, repeater side turn signals were required when no such requirement existed here.

In this case, the decision is driven by the data. The NHTSA had the data and with GAO support on cost/benefit, engaged in the rulemaking. Even between the US and Canada, data drives different decisions. Canada requires daytime running lights. We don't. No "yahoos" on either side! Sure enough, with different dusk/dawn lighting due to how far north each country is, the data showed that in Canada the benefits outweighed the costs. In the US, the data did not show the same result, and the administrative agencies made their decisions accordingly.

In Europe, for whatever reason we may speculate about city street layout, driving behavior, reflections off repeater lamps, etc., the data may not have shown the same degree of improvement for benefits to outweigh costs regarding side markers. The Europeans are not at all shy about enacting safety requirements, but in their environment, assuming they have the data, they likely made the wisest choice. But, with those kind of differences in findings, you can understand why equipment differences will continue to occur and why harmonization will continue to elude the international vehicle manufacturers.

So, for me, while wheels/tires/tunes/cosmetic mods/etc., are entertaining and enjoyable, there are some mods which do entail you taking on the decision of the risk for the "other guy". I find I am not comfortable making that decision for anyone else who might be "impacted" by my choice. For anyone who might have similar social concerns, but not be aware of the data, the above link was posted.

[Thescout13]

But you are damn sure to make sure you rub in your reasons for not doing it into everyones face in a snobby attempt at superiority, instead of just saying "looks good man."

And when the study was conducted absolutely matters. Why? Because roads have changed, cars have changed, lighting technology has changed, people's behaviors have changed, safety features on cars have also changed. Hell even a source from 20 years ago would still be more relevant.

Also, I think you can absolutely assume someone who does this to their car understands there is a risk involved, and treating them like they are idiots is no different than that nanny state we love to hate.

Just be positive to the OP next time man. NO ONE CARES about your safety reasons. Literally no one. Ok maybe that's a little too much, but very very few people actually give a damn. So stop being the safety police, just once.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Thescout13

But you are damn sure to make sure you rub in your reasons for not doing it into everyones face in a snobby attempt at superiority, instead of just saying "looks good man."

And when the study was conducted absolutely matters. Why? Because roads have changed, cars have changed, lighting technology has changed, people's behaviors have changed, safety features on cars have also changed. Hell even a source from 20 years ago would still be more relevant.

Also, I think you can absolutely assume someone who does this to their car understands there is a risk involved, and treating them like they are idiots is no different than that nanny state we love to hate.

Just be positive to the OP next time man. NO ONE CARES about your safety reasons. Literally no one. Ok maybe that's a little too much, but very very few people actually give a damn. So stop being the safety police, just once.

I don't share your view of the world, how you analyze data, nor your highly emotional reaction to other's writing and answers to questions which were asked. There is no point in you and I having continued discussion, and I decline the invitation to limit posting to the superficial "looks good man". Best wishes to you.

[bimmerfile]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Car looks nice, but not a fan of form over function.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/806430.pdf

Thanks for the info.
While I like the look of the body coloured markers, I was unaware that they may be illegal in some jurisdictions.
I'll check with codes here before I make any mods in that area.

[quiksilver1029]

In all honesty, reflectors destroy the uniformity of almost every color...especially white. It was one of the very first modifications I did to both my white F22 and gray E92. Obviously on Valencia Orange the orange reflectors don't stand out as much. There is no arguing that the car looks better when color matching them and I don't think sportstick was trying to contradict that. Yes there is a 'risk' involved with removing the reflectors...and that is why I would like to present this thought experiment.

Let's talk about scenarios where the function would even be applicable. Exhibit A: It is night (the only time reflectors would ever serve a purpose), and a driver goes through a red light or stop sign and T-bones you. If they proceed to say, "oh I didn't see your car because it has no reflectors", would that be reason enough for you to be at fault for the collision? I think not, but I also didn't read far enough into the legislation. Exhibit B: can't really think of another example lol...but if anyone else can please bring it up.

I guess the moral of the story is to always be aware of your surroundings but also don't live in constant fear of looking better than the rest haha.

[sstarrx3]

Some people get defensive when you make a good point that calls them out for being a self centered ass with no regard for anyone other than themselves. Sportstick thank you for posting the link!

[Adem1534]

I've seen your youtube videos. Awesome car.

[scottomfg]

Originally Posted by sstarrx3

Some people get defensive when you make a good point that calls them out for being a self centered ass with no regard for anyone other than themselves. Sportstick thank you for posting the link!

Yep, me, every European BMW owner and BMW itself: self-centered assholes.

:

[sstarrx3]

BMW owners in Europe don't have this safety equipment to remove. So you have no point really. In thick fog lights and reflectors are often the only thing you can see on a car. Lets role the dice and take em off and hope no one gets hurt.

[scottomfg]

Originally Posted by sstarrx3

BMW owners in Europe don't have this safety equipment to remove. So you have no point really. In thick fog lights and reflectors are often the only thing you can see on a car. Lets role the dice and take em off and hope no one gets hurt.

Yeah, but those selfish Europeans could just add them, right? But they don't. They just selfishly drive around without reflectors. Jerks.

[Hemisedan]

I've also wondered whether covering the reflectors was legal or not in Iowa. Here's another issue that us hotrodder/streetrodders run into. The fad is blue dot taillights: Lots of us like the blue look from the rear, however especially now, emergency vehicles run blue lights, granted they are much brighter and larger, but they are still blue. The old law, that is still on the books here in Iowa, at least is that only RED lights are to be visible from the rear. So, when we drive our 38 Ford, 32 roadster, ect. we run the risk of that $25 fine. I got around that by placing red dots in my Deuce Coupe when I built it back in the 80's. Guess what, I still got ticketed and had to go to court, as the wonderful policeman had the ticket all written out before his partner noticed that my blue dots, were actually red. The answer to that from the other policeman was: Go to court and have the judge decide. Wow, Marion, Iowa police.

But back to the painted side markers: Why hasn't someone designed a side marker light reflector, or rear reflector for that matter that reflected even though it is body colored? To me that would make more sense than just having painted reflector covers. Not bashing anyone here, just offering a suggestion.

[Steven1077]

The rest of the world gets on fine without them, I really don't see any reason to have them of the side, I've yet to crash into the side of anyone after 30 years driving

[allthatisntnow]

Yeah, i go through a car a week because i just keep getting side swiped by people not seeing my bi xenons lit up at night. The horror! Im also guessing that the front fog light delete than comes with the M-Sport aero kit means that we're guaranteed to be taken out in the mist too?

But on a serious note, the amount of d!ckheads who just pull out into your lane with no indication whatsoever may be a more serious risk to safety. Its usually the driver and not the vehicle thats at fault.

Looks good OP!