1 2 3
Trackmouse
Trackmouse UltraDork
1/21/17 9:44 a.m.

Thread from 2017:

 

At the dealer, haggling things out. One thing they mention towards the end of negotiations is "oh ya, we have to install the pulse third brake light system, it's $445." He very much made it sound required, as if some Oregon state law said so. I looked things up on the internet and I cannot find anything saying it was required. However, some people have mentioned it was installed on the vehicle prior to purchase. (For does it for $299!) I should say that I'll likely go with this, since I know a pulsating brake light has been proven to be effective on sport bikes. I would just like to know if the dealer is being shady.

iceracer
iceracer UltimaDork
1/21/17 10:12 a.m.

sounds shady to me.

Streetwiseguy
Streetwiseguy PowerDork
1/21/17 10:57 a.m.

If it was required, it would have been installed at the PDI, and the price would have been included.

Slippery
Slippery Dork
1/21/17 11:02 a.m.

What??????

Change dealers.

Klayfish
Klayfish UberDork
1/21/17 11:37 a.m.

It's absolutely required, you can't drive without it. You also can't leave without fabric protection, undercoating, nitrogen filled tires and a dangling tree air freshener.

mazdeuce
mazdeuce UltimaDork
1/21/17 11:44 a.m.

"Required" sometimes means "my manager won't let me sell a car without overcharging you for this." I've had that discussion about nitrogen filled tires. "We won't warranty the tires without nitrogen filling because....." And other coumplete BS. Some dealers suck.

GladlyTheCrossEyedBear
GladlyTheCrossEyedBear New Reader
1/21/17 11:46 a.m.

Ummm, $449? I don't think so.

http://www.madnessmotorworks.com/mini-cooper-s-third-brake-light-pulsar/

codrus
codrus SuperDork
1/21/17 11:48 a.m.

them: "We can't sell the car without X"

me: "OK, well, I can't buy the car with X, so sorry for wasting your time. Have a good day."

Remember that they need to sell you the car more than you need to buy it.

EvanR
EvanR SuperDork
1/21/17 12:07 p.m.

Vehicle lighting is covered under FMVSS108. Most state laws defer to that standard.

Not only is a pulsing CHMSL NOT required under FMVSS108, some people have argued that the law forbids it.

But the problem here is not that the dealer is lying to you, the problem is that they want to charge you $445 for a $10 part that takes 10 minutes to install.

I agree with the other posters. Find a new dealer.

kb58
kb58 Dork
1/21/17 12:17 p.m.

No, it starts with the flat-out lying part, the $445 part is an incidental. The part can be installed yourself and costs $10-30 or so.

XLR99
XLR99 Dork
1/21/17 12:30 p.m.

Sounds like walking out of the shady dealership after congratulating them for losing a sale, is mandatory here...

Outing them on FakeBook for public humiliation purposes is optional.

APEowner
APEowner New Reader
1/21/17 12:43 p.m.

According to Oregon VCB816 section 816.1009(4)available here -> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjFwsHa8NPRAhVFyWMKHVaiBrEQFghGMAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oregon.gov%2FODOT%2FDMV%2Fdocs%2Fvcb%2FVCB816.pdf&usg=AFQjCNENAxjyrCoVwW5KrnfPi4Wih2c4yA&sig2=SSvs1SUEMkDtl7nDTwBVJQ&bvm=bv.144224172,bs.1,d.cGc&cad=rja they're not only not required they're illegal unless you're talking about a motorcycle in which case they're allowed but not required.

ShadowSix
ShadowSix Dork
1/21/17 12:46 p.m.

Anyway, just go in and ask them to provide you with the statute or regulation that requires this. When they come up empty-handed explain that you'll look elsewhere and that you'll be sure to mention the whole thing to the Oregon attorney general's office. You know, just to resolve the confusion.

Javelin
Javelin MegaDork
1/21/17 12:56 p.m.

Not only are pulsating third brake lights illegal, they also increase the chances of somebody rear ending you in a rage by 700%.

Print off the law and then go to another dealer after you've properly humiliated them.

EvanR
EvanR SuperDork
1/21/17 1:28 p.m.
Javelin wrote: Print off the law and then go to another dealer after you've properly humiliated them.

I used to think like this. Then I realized it isn't worth my effort. The sales dude said it was the law because that was what the dealership trained him to say. If he doesn't do as he's told, he'll lose his job - even if he's told to lie. Sales dude can choose to be moral and walk away, but then his kids don't eat.

Even if you point out the lie to the General Manager, he won't care. He really doesn't care if he loses your sale, there's a sucker in line right behind you.

Don't waste your breath.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner MegaDork
1/21/17 2:11 p.m.

As someone who worked at a dealership for a short period - not selling - EvanR's pretty much got it. They don't care. You can "win", but you won't win.

bentwrench
bentwrench Dork
1/21/17 2:23 p.m.

I walked out of Royal Moore here in Hillsboro because of this exact scenario.

Went down the street to the next town and bought a car the same day from a dealer who did not dick me around.

Trackmouse
Trackmouse Dork
1/21/17 3:49 p.m.

It's sounding now like the "option" was already "fitted" to the car. And if I want that gone I would have to wait for a different model. Sounds like I'm getting the run around, on an option that should be reversible.

Like I said, I'll likely deal with it. After all, it's not like it's a useless option. And any added safety is a bonus. I can afford it, so no big deal. I was more interested if this was in fact a required install now.

bentwrench
bentwrench Dork
1/21/17 4:18 p.m.

The issue for me was the Blatant lie and overcharge ing

bentwrench
bentwrench Dork
1/21/17 4:19 p.m.

The issue for me was the blatant lie and overchargeing

daeman
daeman Dork
1/21/17 4:31 p.m.

"sir, seatbelts are mandatory by law, that'll be a $500 upgrade to fit them" . you wouldn't accept that would you?, so why would you accept this nonsense.

By contrast, just because it improves safety, doesn't necessarily make it legal to have or use. A helmet could greatly increase your chances of surviving a crash, but most places won't let you drive on public roads while wearing one.

Trackmouse
Trackmouse Dork
1/21/17 4:42 p.m.

It's true. It's all true.

APEowner
APEowner New Reader
1/21/17 5:43 p.m.
Trackmouse wrote: It's sounding now like the "option" was already "fitted" to the car. And if I want that gone I would have to wait for a different model. Sounds like I'm getting the run around, on an option that *should* be reversible. Like I said, I'll likely deal with it. After all, it's not like it's a useless option. And any added safety is a bonus. I can afford it, so no big deal. I was more interested if this was in fact a required install now.

I can see how it might have been installed without the paperwork catching up to the salesman although that's a bit of a stretch.

Personally I'd be more concerned about that fact that it's illegal in Oregon. I have no idea if you'd ever get a ticket for it or not but it's clearly illegal. I'd be worried about traveling to other states as well.

Javelin
Javelin MegaDork
1/21/17 5:48 p.m.

In reply to Trackmouse:

It's illegal. You can and will get pulled over and issued a fix it ticket violation for it. Why on earth would you pay for that?!? Not to mention the blatant lie about it...

snailmont5oh
snailmont5oh Reader
1/21/17 5:59 p.m.

If you decide to buy that car, definitely don't pay any extra for it. If it has illegal equipment on it when they sell it to you, wouldn't that cause them trouble? I'd consider looking into that.

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
JMxC55idlbiGOqhAepvivbqLQ9P4Z8bSFfNLSQRTyiVM3DxSejZq0CRMuv8AkXgk